[Poll] Canon Reign Supreme Again?

[jocau]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Loswr]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

 

[aznable]

in 2 full quarters nikon has not been capable of doing the 1/2 of profit that canon did in 1 one bad quarter.

maybe the would release more cameras and increase the DR on sensors ahaha

 

[jocau]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

 

[Loswr]

Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car...

With 2.7 stops (base-2 exponents), your budget would be closer to 195,000 € compared to my 30,000 €. That means you could pay for a Ferrari...but in this analogy, you'd be getting the Ferrari engine with the transmission and suspension of a Ford. Might make for a bumpy ride.

 

[MartinvH]

So typical for this site is that most people here are just looking at 'written' specs and rarely at real world results and comparisons.

 

[bdunbar79]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

 

[jocau]

Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car...

With 2.7 stops (base-2 exponents), your budget would be closer to 195,000 € compared to my 30,000 €. That means you could pay for a Ferrari...but in this analogy, you'd be getting the Ferrari engine with the transmission and suspension of a Ford. Might make for a bumpy ride.

Little price miscalculation on my side... Well that would mean an Audi R8 vs a BMW 316i. Still a HUGE difference.

 

[Loswr]

Little price miscalculation on my side... Well that would mean an Audi R8 vs a BMW 316i. Still a HUGE difference.

But still just the engine. Maybe some people base car buying decisions solely on engine horsepower and torque specs. I'm not one of them, which is why DxOMark has little meaning to me.

 

[rpt]

Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car...

With 2.7 stops (base-2 exponents), your budget would be closer to 195,000 € compared to my 30,000 €. That means you could pay for a Ferrari...but in this analogy, you'd be getting the Ferrari engine with the transmission and suspension of a Ford. Might make for a bumpy ride.

Little price miscalculation on my side... Well that would mean an Audi R8 vs a BMW 316i. Still a HUGE difference.

Just the engine. Not the drive train or suspension or cab or anything else. Perfect to rev up in the garage or on a runway. Lousy on real world roads.


Truth be told, this is just one of those Canon vs. Nikon things... Just that my hammer is better than your hammer

 

[jocau]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

 

[DB]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

+1 The older 1D Pro models had an ISO limit of 3200 and yet Professionals managed to get the job done (indoor sporting events etc.) without having the option of ISO 6400 or 10,800 etc. I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?

 

[Loswr]

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.

If? How does that work, exactly? A scene has a given amount of light. At ISO 100 with the widest aperture usable for the required DoF (or the widest available on the lens), that means a given shutter speed. If that's not fast enough to freeze motion, one can add light (frequently not an option), raise ISO, accept a blurry shot, or give up and go home. Maybe your 195,000 € car budget could be used to buy a magic wand that alters optical physics?

... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance.

Your 'logic' seems to have a high level of personal bias...

 

[molnarcs]

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

d800 ISO 8063 1/100 F/1.8 50mm. No post-processing (import to Lightroom, export to JPEG), High-ISO NR off.

EDIT - The above comment is true since the D3 of course.

 

[Loswr]

I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?

Good for you!

Over 30% of my total 1D X shots are at ISO 4000 or higher, and looking at just my personal favorites, it's about 50% at ISO 4000 and up (mostly ISO 4000 or 6400).

 

[sach100]

The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

That maybe. but the very fact that 1dx is pitted against at least three other dslrs - D800, D3s(?), D4 in shadow noise, Low light, God-knows-what-other-features in that order, in-fact, speaks a lot about 1dx. Don't you think?

 

[rpt]

There should be another option:
I could not care to vote but for some reason I keep commenting on this thread

 

[molnarcs]

The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

That maybe. but the very fact that 1dx is pitted against at least three other dslrs - D800, D3s(?), D4 in shadow noise, Low light, God-knows-what-other-features in that order, in-fact, speaks a lot about 1dx. Don't you think?

Pitted against the d3s and d4 - at least on DxO - to me this means they are basically in the same league. This is actually good news, but not the kind of "trashing" that the thread starter hints at. Once invested in lenses, there is no reason whatsoever to switch from one brand to the other, at least not for the kind of work these cameras are intended for.

Landscape/architecture/interiours is a different matter. I made the switch for my own work last year, because the high DR of Nikons does make a significant difference in post-production. That said, we use a number of Canon bodies in our workshops, because much better price/performance ratio, and better availability/service where I live.

 

[aznable]

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

d800 ISO 8063 1/100 F/1.8 50mm. No post-processing (import to Lightroom, export to JPEG), High-ISO NR off.

EDIT - The above comment is true since the D3 of course.

even my 50d is capable of this....lol (fanboysm replied by fanboysm)

 

[bdunbar79]

Sensor-wise Canon is getting crushed by Nikon/Sony/Pentax. No doubt about it. It's about time they bring out new DSLRs with competitive sensors, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The 'market' buys cameras not sensors. Market share-wise Nikon/Sony/Pentax are getting crushed by Canon.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

+1 The older 1D Pro models had an ISO limit of 3200 and yet Professionals managed to get the job done (indoor sporting events etc.) without having the option of ISO 6400 or 10,800 etc. I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?

NO NO NO!

This is not what I'm arguing. And no, they didn't get the job done. There are new shots that you can NOW get that you couldn't previously get with 35mm DSLR's. I'm tired of using this example, but it is one of many. Take for instance my shot of an interception at ISO 25,600, where I still had my shutter at 1/2000s at f/2.8 with a 300 f/2.8L lens. Just 6 months ago I could NOT get that shot. I could have shot at 1/400th, but parts would have been blurry. Did I absolutely NEED to go 1/2000s? No, but the point is, is that I did because I could. In this case, nothing was blury and it was razor sharp. ISO 100 has no value to me at all in this case. I got the shot. The shot got printed at 10 x 14 and put in the football hallway as a wall photo.

DB though, you are right about asking the % of shots, but that's not my point. My point is that there are a greater number of shots possible today vs. even just 6 months ago, due to high ISO performance. Low ISO performance does not add value to me and I've used my own examples. I'm sure better low ISO performance DOES add value to a great many photographers, to your argument's credit. But I am one of many who are not in the market for low ISO monsters because they are useless to us. Every camera can shoot at low ISO, but not nearly all of them can at high ISO's. That is absolutely all I am trying to say and I'm not doing a this camera is better than that camera deal. I am saying some cameras are better for a suited task than others, and it goes both ways.

Your statement about living with bad high ISO doesn't even remotely apply to me, because I cannot for the type of photography I am trying to accomplish. However, I do understand what you are saying for the majority of photographers.