The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.

[powerslave12r]

I fully understand this however most people seem to overlook it including magazines and reviewers. So I just play along. It's a cropped field of view.   Still I love the feature of DX. Most subject matter where I am wanting a DX view full frame would be wasted and I would be writing a lot of unnecessary data.

Back to John's point on the 7Dmkii, you will have all 20MP in the 1.6 crop so overall better resolving power and ability to print larger. The D810 in DX mode is 15MP but again for my needs 15MP is enough most of the time. 

It's all about what fits your individual shooting style and needs. I know that a dedicated 1.6 crop would be detrimental for 85% of my shooting needs. So the Nikon-crop is a good compromise  for me.

Paul

Let's not ignore the side effect of DX mode, you can use DX lenses which can be cheaper/lighter if you can get away with your 15MP.

Of course that's more a F-Mount advantage than DX mode, but +1 Nikon.

[John Koerner]

Let's not ignore the side effect of DX mode, you can use DX lenses which can be cheaper/lighter if you can get away with your 15MP.
Of course that's more a F-Mount advantage than DX mode, but +1 Nikon.

Actually, it's -1 for Nikon.

If you're now beating the "cheaper" drum, the 7D II with cheap (but still pretty good) lenses is the better, cheaper, higher-resolving choice there too.

And, if you want to go back to the best you can do for long-range wildlife photography, the 7D still is the better, more flexible/capable choice on the best lenses.

The only real advantage to the D810 is landscape / static portrait, etc.

Jack

[powerslave12r]

Actually, it's -1 for Nikon.

If you're now beating the "cheaper" drum, the 7D II with cheap (but still pretty good) lenses is the better, cheaper, higher-resolving choice there too.

And, if you want to go back to the best you can do for long-range wildlife photography, the 7D still is the better, more flexible/capable choice on the best lenses.

The only real advantage to the D810 is landscape / static portrait, etc.

Jack

Perhaps I'm not on board with the point your trying to make. Are you trying to suggest that the 7D2 is a better wildlife/sports/action camera than a D810/800? Because if that's so, then your comparison should be with the D7100 and whatever the successor to that will be (D7200 or the like).

 

[NancyP]

D7100 is not a serious action camera: buffer capacity 6 RAWs, or one second worth. What were they thinking?

Thanks for info on "DX" mode in D810. 7 fps, 23 RAWs buffer capacity, 15.3 MP, pixel pitch 4.88 microns, top shutter speed 1/8000 sec. That makes this the best "DX" action camera in the Nikon list - the D750 is 10 MP, 6.5 fps (maybe faster), buffer size unknown, pixel pitch (larger - too lazy to calculate), top shutter speed 1/4000 - the genuine DX camera D7100 has 24 MP, 6 fps, buffer size only 6 RAWs, 1/8000 top shutter speed.

It looks as if Canon still may have the best crop action DSLR with the 7D2 (for the moment), but the D810 specs for DX aren't too much behind my old Canon 60D for frame rate, buffering, MP, and of course the DR is much better.

[powerslave12r]

D7100 is not a serious action camera: buffer capacity 6 RAWs, or one second worth. What were they thinking?

Thanks for info on "DX" mode in D810. 7 fps, 23 RAWs buffer capacity, 15.3 MP, pixel pitch 4.88 microns, top shutter speed 1/8000 sec. That makes this the best "DX" action camera in the Nikon list - the D750 is 10 MP, 6.5 fps (maybe faster), buffer size unknown, pixel pitch (larger - too lazy to calculate), top shutter speed 1/4000 - the genuine DX camera D7100 has 24 MP, 6 fps, buffer size only 6 RAWs, 1/8000 top shutter speed.

It looks as if Canon still may have the best crop action DSLR with the 7D2 (for the moment), but the D810 specs for DX aren't too much behind my old Canon 60D for frame rate, buffering, MP, and of course the DR is much better.

Thanks for that summary, but I think we should hold out for Nikon to show up with the D7200 until drawing a conclusion. (Or wait for the 7D2 to be officially announced for that matter!)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't really feel to make a table based comparison. Discussing FPS without also discussion AF speed, for instance, makes little sense to me. The way I see it is very hard to tell from tabled data which system will perform better in a set situation.

A small pixel pitch camera will always have an advantage in sucking most detail out of a high quality telephoto lens. Personally I would rather use an APS-C camera without 1.5X extender compared to a full frame with extender, assuming the same number of pixels.

The Canon D7 is intended to be a professional camera in APS-C format, so it has good AF, high FPS etc.

If we need the megapixels, high DR at base ISO and ultimate image quality a high resolution full frame camera would be the best option, and the alternatives are Nikon D800/D800E/D810 and the Sony Alpha 7r. In my view the Sony Alpha 7r has a problem with shutter vibration, when Sony rectifies that problem that system may be an alternative in my book.

Best regards
Erik

[BernardLanguillier]

It seems pretty clear that the 7DII is going to be the best APS-C camera when it becomes available and therefore the best option for BiF. That shouldn't come as a surprise considering the time they took to get it right.

Based on the currently known specs, it sounds like a very competent camera, but none of those specs appear to be something Nikon couldn't come up with fairly quickly, not to say today, if they so decided, at least on the photography side.

Overall, I would wait a few more months to see what comes from Nikon in terms of D7100 replacement. Odds are that the camera's design has been ready for months. A competitor such as the 7DII was probably the only thing they needed to decide to proceed with its market release.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that almost any camera can do the job. Nikon has some lead in sensor technology as they use the best sensors in the market they can get while Canon rolls it's own.

I have the impression that a major percentage of the best images in this world have been shot on Canon. Why, because Canon was not messing around with APS-C CCD sensors but went ahead and made full frame CMOS available at an early time. Canon has also developed some of the best lenses using flourite glass may years ago. So Canon won photographer's hearts by offering what they perceived they needed.

Nikon is catching up and doing a good job at it.

Best regards
Erik

It seems pretty clear that the 7DII is going to be the best APS-C camera when it becomes available and therefore the best option for BiF. That shouldn't come as a surprise considering the time they took to get it right.

Based on the currently known specs, it sounds like a very competent camera, but none of those specs appear to be something Nikon couldn't come up with fairly quickly, not to say today, if they so decided, at least on the photography side.

Overall, I would wait a few more months to see what comes from Nikon in terms of D7100 replacement. Odds are that the camera's design has been ready for months. A competitor such as the 7DII was probably the only thing they needed to decide to proceed with its market release.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

Perhaps I'm not on board with the point your trying to make.

It seems more like you're feigning ignorance after having your own points refuted.

Are you trying to suggest that the 7D2 is a better wildlife/sports/action camera than a D810/800?

I am not "trying to suggest" this; I have directly stated it.

It seems you are "trying" to come to grips with the reality of how the facts are panning out, after having your own bubble burst twice now.

If you would like a recap of "what happened," one person called the new 7D II's overall specs, "lame." What I did was refute that ridiculous statement by showing how (basically) the 7D II may well prove to be the best camera out there for the money. Essentially, the 7D II looks to have all the capability of the Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx for a fraction of the cost. That is strong, not lame.

What YOU are having trouble understanding is that other overall features "make" a camera; it's not just resolution. I guess I have to repeat myself, until it sinks in with you: this is why the D4 is twice as expensive as a D810; it is a more useful, higher-spec, camera in pretty much every other useful category, and it resolves awfully well too. Just not quite as well as the D810, but it does everything else better. Same with the 1Dx: it is a more useful overall camera, which is why it is likewise almost twice as expensive.

The D810 is a great camera at pretty much only ONE aspect: resolution. Say that to yourself until it resonates with you ...

Other than that, the D810 is basically is a mid-level runner at everything else ...

So, yes, the 7D Mark II is a better overall wildlife camera for about half the cost of the D810.
Quite frankly, it basically has all the capabilities (and more) of the D4 and 1Dx at a fraction of the cost of these.
This makes the overall specs of the 7D II GREAT, not "lame."

Because if that's so, then your comparison should be with the D7100 and whatever the successor to that will be (D7200 or the like).
 

I guess you're burying your head in the sand of your own creation

A quick review of our conversation reveals you are the one who said "+1 for Nikon," just because the D810 also shoots crop-only lenses

I merely pointed out the fact that so does the 7D II ...

And when you make the comparison as a crop, the D810 is actually a lamer crop-level camera than the 7D II. The 7D II would handle cheap lenses better, for cheaper $$, and would produce better images as a crop than the D810 too. So, the truth is exactly the opposite; your own comparison is another +1 for the 7D II. Basically, ANY way you want to slice it, whether putting the most expensive Zoom + extender on the D810, or by putting cheap lenses on the D810 using at as an ASP-C, you have a lesser system on the crop D810 than you would with the 7D II + anything.

The truth is, the D810 only excels by using the full capability of its sensor, not as a crop, and with the best prime (not zoom) glass.
Then you indeed have a special camera, and that is the only +1 for Nikon. But that comes after taking two -1s.

If you are now trying to back-pedal out of your own statements regarding crop capabilities ... feigning comprehension of what "I" am trying to say (lol) ... and are now trying to pass the buck onto the D7100, it too falls short in most categories. But not all.

Hope this clarifies,

Jack

[John Koerner]

It seems pretty clear that the 7DII is going to be the best APS-C camera when it becomes available and therefore the best option for BiF. That shouldn't come as a surprise considering the time they took to get it right.

Actually, the old 7D is still a better overall tool than the D7100. Canon has "had it right" since the 7D came out in 2009 ...

Based on the currently known specs, it sounds like a very competent camera, but none of those specs appear to be something Nikon couldn't come up with fairly quickly, not to say today, if they so decided, at least on the photography side.

You're also forgetting Canon's considerable lead in heavy glass too ...

Overall, I would wait a few more months to see what comes from Nikon in terms of D7100 replacement. Odds are that the camera's design has been ready for months. A competitor such as the 7DII was probably the only thing they needed to decide to proceed with its market release.
Cheers,
Bernard

Well, that has been going on for years, and in both directions, and will continue to go on for as long as both are in business ...

But, right now (and since the 7D came out), the most overall useful and capable ASP-C camera has been the 7D ... and it looks like it will continue to be this way for quite awhile with the 7D II.

Again, the 7D II compares favorably to the D4 and 1Dx, and pretty much blows the doors off of other ASP-Cs in overall functionality.

Jack

[pedro39photo]

its a "tabu" to canon buy " other brands sensors" ? and put for example the same 36mp sony in a future 5d mark4?
why its imperative canon body - canon sensor? no other brands do that, maybe sony...not much more.

[John Koerner]

its a "tabu" to canon buy put the same 36mp sony in a future 5d mark4?
why its imperative canon body - canon sensor?   

You raise an interesting point, Pedro.

Bernard mentioned how "easy" he thinks Nikon could adjust to catch up to Canon ... in point of fact, it would be easier for Canon to surpass Nikon ... just by catching up on the sensor (even if via outsourcing), because every other camera feature (as well as Canon's lens portfolio) is already superior.

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard mentioned how "easy" he thinks Nikon could adjust to catch up to Canon ... in point of fact, it would be easier for Canon to surpass Nikon ... just by catching up on the sensor (even if via outsourcing), because every other camera feature (as well as Canon's lens portfolio) is already superior.

Jack,

My view is that, in terms of photography (video is different), the only point where Canon has a unique proposition for distant photography is the 200-400 f4 with built-in converter. That seems to be a very sweet lens although it generates some concerns about long term durability at the level of the converter IMHO. In terms of pure quality, Nikon has IMHO with the new 400mm f2.8 FL the best long lens on the market. Their 800mm f5.6 is also superior to the Canon offering, admittedly a bit old now. But all of these lenses are simply brilliant and more than good enough for practical applications. Even my 7 years old 300mm AF-S VRI is absolutely splendid on the D810 in terms of image quality, focus speed/accuracy and stabilisation.

On the body side, I frankly don't see any single aspect where the best so far Canon body, the 5DIII, is superior to a D810. OK, one more fps. We can assume that the 7DII might improve a little bit over the 5DIII, which will make it, as I mentioned above, the best APS-C camera on the market. I don't disagree that the 7D was already in many ways superior. Nikon simply messed up big time by not upgrading the D300s. They had all the technology, they just decided they wanted to push their users towards FF. Another incredibly misguided decision on their side.

Perhaps I am missing something and I wouldn't mind the least bit being corrected, but I don't see any single technology relevant for photographers the 7DII is rumoured to have that Nikon doesn't already have in the D810 (or the D750 for that matter). Perhaps AF to some extend? But the AF of the D4s/D810 is extremely good already. On the other hand Canon clearly doesn't have the sensor technology till now, and they have been unable to release something close in the last 5 years. I am genuinely disappointed by this because, as mentioned countless times, I would love them to release something better because it would give me even more options. It is Canon that resulted in Nikon releasing the D3, but they haven't been able to challenge them the least bit image quality wise since then.

Back to the point. all it would take for Nikon to release a D400 with specs similar or superior to those of the 7DII is repackaging of existing technologies. It could frankly be done in a few months even if they kicked off the project today. But I agree with you that the major difference is that the 7DII (most probably) exists today and will be in the hands of photographers within a few weeks, while the D400 is paper talk.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

Jack,
My view is that, in terms of photography (video is different), the only point where Canon has a unique proposition for distant photography is the 200-400 f4 with built-in converter. That seems to be a very sweet lens although it generates some concerns about long term durability at the level of the converter IMHO.

Hi Bernard.

The 200-400 is considered by many to be the single, greatest, most versatile advent in long lens history period. And it would be hard to argue that.

Your raising doubts about the durability of the extender is reaching, pure speculation, nothing more. We agree it is a sweet lens

In terms of pure quality, Nikon has IMHO with the new 400mm f2.8 FL the best long lens on the market. Their 800mm f5.6 is also superior to the Canon offering, admittedly a bit old now. But all of these lenses are simply brilliant and more than good enough for practical applications. Even my 7 years old 300mm AF-S VRI is absolutely splendid on the D810 in terms of image quality, focus speed/accuracy and stabilisation.

Mmmmm ... most people would say the Canon 600 is the better lens.

I would never spend the money on a 400mm (from either company). Don't know about the 800s, would never buy one of those either.

Don't need to with the 200-400 on a 7D II (320-890)

I have no doubts that your D810 with a prime 300mm takes superb images! That is where the D810 excels.

On the body side, I frankly don't see any single aspect where the best so far Canon body, the 5DIII, is superior to a D810. OK, one more fps. We can assume that the 7DII might improve a little bit over the 5DIII, which will make it, as I mentioned above, the best APS-C camera on the market. I don't disagree that the 7D was already in many ways superior. Nikon simply messed up big time by not upgrading the D300s. They had all the technology, they just decided they wanted to push their users towards FF. Another incredibly misguided decision on their side.

We agree here. I would not buy the 5DMkIII.

If I was going for that type of camera, a landscape FF, I too would get the D810.

We also agree on what you said about the ASP-Cs.

Perhaps I am missing something and I wouldn't mind the least bit being corrected, but I don't see any single technology relevant for photographers the 7DII is rumoured to have that Nikon doesn't already have in the D810 (or the D750 for that matter). Perhaps AF to some extend? But the AF of the D4s/D810 is extremely good already. On the other hand Canon clearly doesn't have the sensor technology till now, and they have been unable to release something close in the last 5 years. I am genuinely disappointed by this because, as mentioned countless times, I would love them to release something better because it would give me even more options. It is Canon that resulted in Nikon releasing the D3, but they haven't been able to challenge them the least bit image quality wise since then.

I never said anything about single technology; what I said was the 7D II is the better overall package.

We agree that Nikon has had a lock on the single issue of top sensor quality; they have a lock on nothing else.

The 7D II (if the specs are right) will simply be the better, overall more useful tool. It may not eclipse the D810 in absolute resolution on a fixed prime, but it will have better AF, will shoot more FPS, will have a better range of efficacy, and pretty darned good resolution, all for less money. Again, same with the D4. That is why the D4 is more expensive than the D810: it's a better overall tool. So too (it looks like) will be the 7D II ... but for half as much, not twice as much, as the D810.

Back to the point. all it would take for Nikon to release a D400 with specs similar or superior to those of the 7DII is repackaging of existing technologies. It could frankly be done in a few months even if they kicked off the project today. But I agree with you that the major difference is that the 7DII (most probably) exists today and will be in the hands of photographers within a few weeks, while the D400 is paper talk.
Cheers,
Bernard

Again, it would be simpler for Canon to plop a Sony sensor in its cameras than it would be for Nikon to equal the 24-70 II, the 70-200 II, the 200-400+ built-in extendor, etc. of Canon.

Even the new D7100 still can't match the overall pro specs of the old 7D of 5 years ago, and it is pretty much smoked by the specs of the new one.

And even if Nikon released a D400, it still wouldn't have the 200-400 that can come close to the Canon offering (nor the 24-70, nor the 70-200).

Okay, Nikon has the 400mm, but Canon's 200-400 is a much sweeter, overall more capable lens ... and then there's their new 600L II ...

But, hey, both camera companies have their strengths.

I just happen to like Canon's lens offerings better (*save one ).

Jack

[peterottaway]

There is no doubt that the Nikon APS-C cameras since at least the D90 have been less than they could / should have been. That is of course a different argument most of the time from say whether Canon should have pulled their collective fingers out and produced improved sensor packages several years ago. I say most of the time because you can make the argument that Nikon has been so complacent because Canon has been so complacent - but others will argue it's the other way round.

Here in Australia, Canon has held 50 to 60 percent for quite a few years in DSLR type cameras. You could say that the dealers and the buying consumer public know their places in the market, and so far this has been a self sustaining advantage in pure numbers and potential profit - for now. But say in the smart phone business it is said that Apple has only 20 % of the market ( depending on how you define a smart phone )but somewhere around 65 -70 % of the profit. And an Apple Watch anyone ?

[Ajoy Roy]

The post started with sensor technology, and has now been side tracked to body and lense debate. Why dont we get back to the sensor part.

Though Nikon bodies have higher MP, the Canon sensor + processor combination seems to deliver better performance, at least at FPS and AF side.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Don't forget dynamic range, read noise, sans OLPF, and ISO performance.

[BernardLanguillier]

The post started with sensor technology, and has now been side tracked to body and lense debate. Why dont we get back to the sensor part.

Though Nikon bodies have higher MP, the Canon sensor + processor combination seems to deliver better performance, at least at FPS and AF side.

We don't know yet about the 7DII, but the D4s/D810 have a remarkably fast and robust AF that IMHO outdoes that of 5DIII a bit or is at least not overall worse. We'll have to test the D750 but Nikon says it is the same.

Sensor wise they are much superior at low ISO (the gap is larger than that btwn MF digital at its best days and the best  DSLRs) and they basically identical at high Iso after downsizing.

Fps is indeed a bit higher than the the D810, similar to the D750.

There are some great lenses in Canon's line up, some without equivalent in Nikon's line up (17mm T/S, 200-400 + converter after 10 years without a fast 200-400,...) but the bodies are very competent but overall un-impresive IMHO. The 7DII specs are the best among APS-C cameras but mostly because Nikon has been sleep walking for 7 years. How long is that going to continue? Besides, some would argue that the rumored Samsung NX1 may steal the show big time...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Glenn NK]

Keith,

No issues here. I am brand agnostic, . . .

Cheers,
Bernard

Well you certainly had me fooled. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Well you certainly had me fooled.  

I currently use camera equipment from various brands including Nikon (D810 and lenses), Sony (RX100, a5100), Sigma (DP2 Quattro and lenses), Ebony (45SU), Betterlight, Zeiss (lenses), Leica (lenses), Profoto, Epson, RRS, Gitzo,...

Pretty much what I think is best for my needs in every category, that I can afford and that makes sense in the context of my past investments.

I used to own Canon cameras too (G10 and S90) and they served me well but today I don't see any Canon camera being best in class in each category that would help me by doing things better than the cameras I currently own. That does obviously not mean that canon cameras can't be used to produce amazing photography.

Canon has some great lenses but unfortunately they don't mount on any of the cameras I currently own (not quite true since I could now mount some on the a5100).

So yes, I am totally brand agnostic but I don't see why it should prevent me from sharing my views about the equipment I have selected as being the best for my needs relative to those I didn't pick.

One recent example is the Sony a5100 that is IMHO the best mirror less offering out there today as a compact complement to a classic DSLR, even if I know full well that nobody else has expressed this view here at LL.

Cheers,
Bernard