[Poll] Canon Reign Supreme Again?

[bdunbar79]

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.

No they don't. The D4 doesn't even have as high of ISO capabilities as the 1DX. I'm tired of charts and scores, this is experience-based. Sorry. If you want to prove me wrong, go out on a poorly lit football field this fall. Shoot each camera at ISO 25,600 and tell me which camera has better high ISO capabilities.

 

[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.

No they don't. The D4 doesn't even have as high of ISO capabilities as the 1DX. I'm tired of charts and scores, this is experience-based. Sorry. If you want to prove me wrong, go out on a poorly lit football field this fall. Shoot each camera at ISO 25,600 and tell me which camera has better high ISO capabilities.

Who can afford to buy a D4 and a 1DX plus lenses? For me, numbers reported by DxO proved to be fairly accurate in practice. For example, I do see the 2EV difference between RAWs from the MK II and the d7000 (well, closer to 1 2/3 stops) when pushing shadows in LR. Similarly, I do see close to a stop advantage to the MK II when it comes to low-light performance. Look, I don't want to convince you - and obviously I can't. You're happy with what you have, and that's fine. Happy shooting

 

[Robert Welch]

I think the camera that Canon really jumped over Nikon with was the 5D3, when pitted against the D800 most photographers will find the 5D3 more useable. Sure, the D800 has it's uses, but for a more narrow segment of the photographers out there. The 1Dx vs. D4 is probably a close race over all, feature for feature.

So that leaves the 6D vs. D600, and I'd say the D600 really compares more to the 5D3 feature for feature, and when you factor in the price, may be a better buy. So in the end, over all Nikon may still have a better lineup of full-frame cameras to appeal to the widest group of photographers. Canon has limited the 6D so much that it's opened the door for Nikon to market the D600 to photographers who are looking at choosing between the 6D & 5D3, they can get the D600 and not have to choose, effectively. Sure, the 5D3 is built better and probably performs better over all, but when it comes to marketing to the widest possible number of photographers, the fact that the D600 has most of the key features in common at a much lower price tag means it will have a wider target market.

 

[Fishnose]

Nikon net income dropped 36.5% in the last quarter. You have indeed had too much Vodka. The figures in parentheses are negative, a reduction!
http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm

The figures you quote are for the whole Nikon Corporatioopn. The figures for the Nikon Imaging Division are as follows:

Net sales: 381 billion yen (up 56.5 billion yen from same period previous year)
Operating income: 41.8 billion yen (down 5.6 billion yen from same period previous year)

Nikon sold a total of:
3,450,000 interchangeable cameras (up 720k from same period previous year)
4,770,000 interchangeable lenses (up 840k from same period previous year)
8,260,000 compact cameras (up 400k from same period previous year)

So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
Which is pretty amazing stuff. Nikon cameras and lenses are absolutely flying out the door. Even their compacts are UP 5% in the face of a general (significant) downturn in that area.

It's difficult to do a direct comparison with Canon, as Canon includes their inkjet printers in the corresponding division (!), but they sure aren't showing the same kind of upward surge. Not even close.

Nikon Imaging's lower operating income in spite of a considerable increase in turnover is most likely a result of increased costs incurred as a result of the Tsunami and the Thai floods.

So he's closer to the truth that you, with or without vodka.

 

[jocau]

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...

Why such an aggressive attitude in your post? I know it's not possible, that's why the sentence is started with the word "if". And no it's not personal bias. Most of my shots are at ISO800-1600. I would rather have them shot at ISO100 but that's not an option. So I like very good performance at high ISO (hence the reason why I'm probably going to buy the 6D), but I also want very good performance at ISO100. And the latter is where Canon is trailing behind...

 

[neuroanatomist]

So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
Which is pretty amazing stuff.

Amazing, indeed. Out of the past 20 quarters, how many more than this last one has Nikon outsold Canon in the dSLR market segment? More importantly, how many more quarters like this last one are needed for Nikon to overcome their significantly lower dSLR market share, after losing it to Canon repeatedly over the past several years?

I know it's not possible, that's why the sentence is started with the word "if". And no it's not personal bias.

You're right, that part wasn't biased, though it was a pretty big and fanciful 'if'. But this part:

It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

...makes the assumption we can all shoot at low ISO most of the time, as you apparently can (and here I'm assuming that with current FF sensors, ISO 1600 isn't 'high'). For those of us that routinely need to shoot at greater than ISO 3200, your logic doesn't apply. That's the bias to which I was referring.

Ideally, we'd have great performance at low and high ISO, and everyone would be happy. That's solidly in the fanciful land of 'IF' for now.

 

[HarryWintergreen]

After EOS 1DX's trashing of D4 and 5D Mark III's victory over D800, will 6D destroy D600 for a complete FF sweep?

Hmm. I had to chuckle when I read this.

When the actual (not rumored) DxO scores for the 1DX came out, it turned out that the D4 has a better sensor after all.
Both the D800 and D600 have better sensors than the 5DIII as well.

So, not seeing how Canon is trashing Nikon. It's actually the opposite.

Also, the quarterly results for the last quarter show that Nikon's sales are up, while Canon's sales are down.
Again, how is Canon trashing Nikon when Nikon is gaining market share and Canon is losing???

I'm a Canon shooter, who has spent thousands of $$$ on Canon gear.
I find Canon's recent products very disappointing, since they are either underspec'd or overpriced ... or both.

So, at this time I'm actually very glad that Nikon is trashing Canon.
Maybe someone at Canon's headquarters will finally take notice.

+1 definitely! I can't help it but the Canon management is a mystery to me. But on the other hand nothing to write home about. I'm very satisfied with my Canon hear. And when it comes to mirrorless I have to admit other facturers having a lead, to say the least. Competition is a good thing. Let's wait and see...

 

[jocau]

It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

...makes the assumption we can all shoot at low ISO most of the time, as you apparently can (and here I'm assuming that with current FF sensors, ISO 1600 isn't 'high'). For those of us that routinely need to shoot at greater than ISO 3200, your logic doesn't apply. That's the bias to which I was referring.

Ideally, we'd have great performance at low and high ISO, and everyone would be happy. That's solidly in the fanciful land of 'IF' for now.

What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.

Take a look at these 2 examples:

1) a runner with a heartbeat of 70 bpm (low ISO)
2) a runner with a heartbeat of 180 bpm (high ISO)

Which one most likely has to stop to catch his breath?

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

 

[jocau]

What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome.

 

[Fishnose]

So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
Which is pretty amazing stuff.

Amazing, indeed. Out of the past 20 quarters, how many more than this last one has Nikon outsold Canon in the dSLR market segment? More importantly, how many more quarters like this last one are needed for Nikon to overcome their significantly lower dSLR market share, after losing it to Canon repeatedly over the past several years?

What does that have to do with what I wrote? I have NO idea how many cameras Canon has sold this quarter. My only point was that someone else here seemed to think that Nilkon did badly in camera sales - because they looked at the wrong Nikon figures.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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.

This is totally subjective to what you shoot though. Yeah, I could use my alien bees and both speedlights to light a reception hall so i can shoot at ISO 100, but, if its a nice hall and has interesting ambient light, then I'm stuck losing all that just to shoot at ISO 100. I love that on my mk3 I have the option of using off cam light and lower ISO's to get crisper shots when needed, but, I also LOVE the fact that I can crank it to 6400-12800 depending on the situation and get a solid usable image. Different shooters have different needs and should get the tools best suited for them, both in the long and short term.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I think the camera that Canon really jumped over Nikon with was the 5D3, when pitted against the D800 most photographers will find the 5D3 more useable. Sure, the D800 has it's uses, but for a more narrow segment of the photographers out there. The 1Dx vs. D4 is probably a close race over all, feature for feature.

So that leaves the 6D vs. D600, and I'd say the D600 really compares more to the 5D3 feature for feature, and when you factor in the price, may be a better buy. So in the end, over all Nikon may still have a better lineup of full-frame cameras to appeal to the widest group of photographers. Canon has limited the 6D so much that it's opened the door for Nikon to market the D600 to photographers who are looking at choosing between the 6D & 5D3, they can get the D600 and not have to choose, effectively. Sure, the 5D3 is built better and probably performs better over all, but when it comes to marketing to the widest possible number of photographers, the fact that the D600 has most of the key features in common at a much lower price tag means it will have a wider target market.

I'm really not sure anyone can make a call with 6d vs d600 at the moment. The 6d is still really unseen and untested. So m,any if's with the 6d, and from what I see with the d600 --- those that are commenting are saying that there is no point in having so many AF points that are crammed into such a small section of the field of view. If the 6d AF is spread more evenly, even with less points it may in fact hold its own. If the ISO in the 6d can come close to what the mk3 can do between 3200-12800, then well the game is really on (d600 native iso is 6400). If's and if's and if's though, until the 6d is out there it's hard to make any call of winner or loser.

 

[jukka]

So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.
Which is pretty amazing stuff.

Amazing, indeed. Out of the past 20 quarters, how many more than this last one has Nikon outsold Canon in the dSLR market segment? More importantly, how many more quarters like this last one are needed for Nikon to overcome their significantly lower dSLR market share, after losing it to Canon repeatedly over the past several years?

I know it's not possible, that's why the sentence is started with the word "if". And no it's not personal bias.

You're right, that part wasn't biased, though it was a pretty big and fanciful 'if'. But this part:

It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

...makes the assumption we can all shoot at low ISO most of the time, as you apparently can (and here I'm assuming that with current FF sensors, ISO 1600 isn't 'high'). For those of us that routinely need to shoot at greater than ISO 3200, your logic doesn't apply. That's the bias to which I was referring.

Ideally, we'd have great performance at low and high ISO, and everyone would be happy. That's solidly in the fanciful land of 'IF' for now.

What guarantees the number of sold cameras? VW Beatle was the best-selling car for a long time, I've never owned one but I have had many Mercedes, BMW, etc. If this would be a measurement of something then should I buy a Toyota next time ???


kulhon Mitä helvettiä me juominen tai puhu

 

[bdunbar79]

It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

...makes the assumption we can all shoot at low ISO most of the time, as you apparently can (and here I'm assuming that with current FF sensors, ISO 1600 isn't 'high'). For those of us that routinely need to shoot at greater than ISO 3200, your logic doesn't apply. That's the bias to which I was referring.

Ideally, we'd have great performance at low and high ISO, and everyone would be happy. That's solidly in the fanciful land of 'IF' for now.

What I meant with that is that it's more logical from a technical point of view. Not that I or any other person prefers very good performance at low ISO. Everybody knows that raising ISO means more noise and less DR.

Take a look at these 2 examples:

1) a runner with a heartbeat of 70 bpm (low ISO)
2) a runner with a heartbeat of 180 bpm (high ISO)

Which one most likely has to stop to catch his breath?

That's actually a really poor example. I ran with a 4:00 miler with a MHR of 200 bpm and a resting HR of 60 bpm. I ran 20 seconds slower than he did and my MHR was 180 and resting 47. I ran out of breath way, way before he did. Thus HR has been discounted as a predicter of running performance and now it is velocity at maximum oxygen uptake vs. oxygen usage, or vVO2 max.

 

[jrh]

I am not sure where this thread is going comparing cars and heart rates but a good measurement of reality with Canon, Nikon and Sony is their stock values - and Canon and Nikon are within 10% of their 52 week lows. Sony is right at their low and posting negative numbers. Yes, there is a lot more involved with this, but the overall direction of these companies has Canon way ahead IMHO. Nikon's numbers could be read that they are buying their market share at the expense of their margins which is a horrible long term strategy. Yes, I am frustrated with the lack of compelling product releases from Canon but feel much better about their long term position. After all, the most talked about "advancement" from Nikon is a SONY 36mp sensor - without this the D800 would not be where it is today.

 

[Shooter]

I currently own two 1D X's, with a third one coming, and two D800's. Nobody is going to reign supreme anytime soon. Both these cameras are wonderful, each is just a different tool. I now shoot almost all my residential and commercial architecture with the 800, most anything that moves, with the X bodies. The X has considerably less noise at iso's from 400 up when compared to the Nikon. The Nikon's dynamic range and megapixel count make it an exceptional tool for certain assignments.

I've solved the fanboy thing by having two rolling LowePro cases, one filled with Canon, one filled with Nikon. These are tools, great tools, but nothing more than that. As they say, "I ain't married to any of it!"

 

[jukka]

Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx

et näe metsää puilta

 

[Dylan777]

I currently own two 1D X's, with a third one coming, and two D800's. Nobody is going to reign supreme anytime soon. Both these cameras are wonderful, each is just a different tool. I now shoot almost all my residential and commercial architecture with the 800, most anything that moves, with the X bodies. The X has considerably less noise at iso's from 400 up when compared to the Nikon. The Nikon's dynamic range and megapixel count make it an exceptional tool for certain assignments.

I've solved the fanboy thing by having two rolling LowePro cases, one filled with Canon, one filled with Nikon. These are tools, great tools, but nothing more than that. As they say, "I ain't married to any of it!"

+1...but couldn't afford both systems. I started with Canon and will stay with Canon for now.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx

et näe metsää puilta

Maybe the forest can't be seen for the trees, because you're showing a picture of skyscrapers and not trees? You are posting about high ISO noise, then showing data about dynamic range (calculated as full well minus read noise). Read noise contributes to the DR calculation, but there are more factors that contribute to high ISO noise than just read noise, and Shooter is actually looking at real-world images - something that must carry significant weight in this discussion. Even then, if you look at Claff's read noise vs. ISO plot (which is far more relevant to this discussion), you'll see that between ISO 500 and ISO 4000, the 1D X has lower read noise than the D800. You might also try showing the D800, not the D800E, since the former is the camera under discussion (although the differences are minor, the D800E has a slight advantage in most measurements, which is perhaps why some people choose to show those data instead, to accentuate any differences with other models). I wonder why you opted to show the less relevant DR data to support your point, instead of the more relevant read noise data, which are entirely consistent with Shooter's statements based on real-world observations, but with which you disagree?