The Canon Vs NikonSony and the future sensor tecnology.

[David Anderson]

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

Pity it can't be mounted on a Canon camera with any real resolution like the D800e 

[armand]

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

That or the a6000 with the compact 16-50 would be my recommendation for a beginner who just wants significantly better photos with a remote possibility for upgrade despite the fact I never used one outside the store.

They have a large good sensor yet are quite compact with that lens so more likely to have them with you, very good autofocus, very good movies. The sharpness and distortion are overrated for that level.


The recently advanced compact released at Photokina might challenge this.
You can see if Canon advanced its sensor on the G7x (hint, it might be the one from Sony, so they are not opposed to outside sources for sensors)

[Torbjörn Tapani]

I thought this was rather interesting. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1

It features the first backside iluminated CMOS in a crop sensor (the first bigger than 1"). If the specs are right it blows the 7D II out of the water.  On sensor (28 MP!)  phase detect 15 fps autofocus. And Wifi. I think the serious sports and BIF cameras will be mirrorless sooner than we might think. Thom Hogan has said he wouldn't be surprised if the D5 was mirrorless, electronic 30 fps shutter. There is just no way to go much beyond 15 fps with a flappy mirror.

The Canon offering might still be the best system with mature AF and lenses but things are moving fast.

[BernardLanguillier]

You can see if Canon advanced its sensor on the G7x (hint, it might be the one from Sony, so they are not opposed to outside sources for sensors)

The G7x seems very nice, especially the lens, but most reports mention it as using the Sony sensor used in the RX100III.

Canon has a history of using Sony sensors in sizes smaller than APS-C, so I am not sure this indicates a change.

Cheers,
Bernard

[armand]

I thought this was rather interesting. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1

It features the first backside iluminated CMOS in a crop sensor (the first bigger than 1"). If the specs are right it blows the 7D II out of the water.  On sensor (28 MP!)  phase detect 15 fps autofocus. And Wifi. I think the serious sports and BIF cameras will be mirrorless sooner than we might think. Thom Hogan has said he wouldn't be surprised if the D5 was mirrorless, electronic 30 fps shutter. There is just no way to go much beyond 15 fps with a flappy mirror.

The Canon offering might still be the best system with mature AF and lenses but things are moving fast.

The problem it has is that it doesn't have a large user base. You need to get new lenses also, and for the good ones it will not be that light and it will be expensive. As far as I recall Samsung doesn't have the best track supporting its old products although come to think off Sony also changed directions several times but they got away with the longer history that they have.

For example I am quite covered on Nikon APS-C side, with Sigma 8-16, and Nikons 16-85, 70-300 (full frame), 35 1.8 DX and 50 1.8 D (full frame). If they come up with a better quality 16-85 range and a good upgrade of the D7100 I will get it to alternate with my current Fuji, particularly for more active shooting. I would rather do this then switch to Samsung (or Canon for that matter), I might even get a full-frame than going for other competing APS-C systems.
I am using Fuji because of being significantly lighter yet with similar quality. Samsung looks very competitive if you are starting new, although that tracking and 15 fps needs to be proved first and those are the main draws, and who knows, the resolution if the combination lens/sensor is better than in the past.

I might be alone but the reason I didn't upgrade my D90 is because I didn't like the sensor in D7100, it has that grain at all ISOs (similar to m43) and the most important part when I looked at 100% shots on dpreview the curved lines were jagged; it might not mean anything in real life but it felt artificial.

[deejjjaaaa]

There is just no way to go much beyond 15 fps with a flappy mirror.

that does not mean that mirror will go away... first of all there is a fixed mirror cameras and then you can keep flappy mirror, but switch to high FPS with mirror raised.

[NancyP]

I shoot with an entire camera and lens system, not just a sensor. So while there is no question that Canon is behind the times as regards its sensors, the system provides good usability for me. And I am not averse to trying new things, within fiscal reason. I enjoy my Sigma DP Merrills. Perhaps in the future I will try a Sony A7r body and adapter for my existing lens set. Perhaps even cheaper would be serious grunt work at improving my post-processing skills. 

[BernardLanguillier]

That or the a6000 with the compact 16-50 would be my recommendation for a beginner who just wants significantly better photos with a remote possibility for upgrade despite the fact I never used one outside the store.

I had the opportunity to compare the size of the a5100 and a6000 this Saturday since we had both on the same table right next to each other. The a6000 is a much larger body.

As far as the target users, yes, it is a great camera for beginners. But my view is that it is also the perfect complement for a high end DSLR. I would go as far as saying that it is the best completement to a high end DSLR there is on the market today, which is why I have bought one.

The sensor used in the a5100 is equal or superior to that of the D3x at low ISO. With the right lens, this thing can produce exhibition quality prints without any problem.

Cheers,
Bernard

[armand]

I didn't realize they are that different in size, although if you add the lens it's less significant: http://j.mp/1nYTaob

[John Koerner]

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.

Aside from it not really being "the best" long lens on the market, even if (for the sake of argument) we said it is, then actually this is another reason to go with Canon, quite frankly.

1. Canon's overall lens lineup is simply better;
2. On the few instances where Nikon has an edge on a particular lens, you can still mount it on a Canon, increasing the versatility of the Canon system all the more;
3. On the many instances where Canon has the edge, over a wide variety of lens types, you basically have to do without that lens if you own a Nikon.
4. And, let's face it: Canon sensors are already good enough to have pros using them successfully all over the world; the difference isn't that much; and sooner or later they will equal or surpass Nikon in sensor development too.

It's the whole package, the versatility, it's not just about a sensor comparison.

Jack

[BernardLanguillier]

Aside from it not really being "the best" long lens on the market, even if (for the sake of argument) we said it is, then actually this is another reason to go with Canon, quite frankly.

1. Canon's overall lens lineup is simply better;
2. On the few instances where Nikon has an edge on a particular lens, you can still mount it on a Canon, increasing the versatility of the Canon system all the more;
3. On the many instances where Canon has the edge, over a wide variety of lens types, you basically have to do without that lens if you own a Nikon.
4. And, let's face it: Canon sensors are already good enough to have pros using them successfully all over the world; the difference isn't that much; and sooner or later they will equal or surpass Nikon in sensor development too.

It's the whole package, the versatility, it's not just about a sensor comparison.

Jack

Jack,

We both are happy to have selected the right system for our needs, this is great!

Just one point among those you mention above. Fast and accurate AF are super important criteria for super tele lenses. Mounting a Nikon 400mm f2.8 FL on a Canon body will offer the superb image quality, but you will loose the AF which makes the lens pretty useless for most applications where a fast tele is needed.

As far as I am concerned, I value lenses more than bodies in the long term, so I am indeed glad to know my F mount lenses will potentially all be usable on a Canon body in the future, but I consider this to be pretty irrelevant for the super teles because of AF.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Petrus]

In fact, the 200-400 is considered by many to Canon's most epic piece of glass, ever, and has pioneered the built-in extender technology, which no one else has added to a zoom.

I actually asked why Canon did not make the lens a 200-560mm f/2.8 - 5.6 zoom. Might have been smaller and cheaper than playing with the built-in converter, and faster at the short end also. Maybe they were stuck with the idea of a zoom with converter, as it sounds more professional and has constant aperture, but in fact it is clumsier and has no continuous zoom range throughout. Reviewers and commentators have swallowed Canon's offering hook, line and sinker without asking the same question.

I am not doubting it is a good lens, but just askin'...

[melchiorpavone]

Fast and accurate AF are super important criteria for super tele lenses.

Nonsense. Manual focus is better.

[MrSmith]

I'm starting to wonder about this forum, a hive of information but I do wonder if anyone actually creates imagery any more? Or photography is now some kind of intellectual pursuit that doesn't involve pressing a shutter release or being visually aware?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I cannot comment on weather Nikon's nor Canon's telephoto lenses. To do that we need to either shot both on identical cameras or have MTF curves measured in similar setup.

What I can definitively say is that a high resolution APS-C body will extract more detail with a telephoto at a set distance than a full frame body with similar pixel count. On the full frame body an extender can be added, but it is questionable if it would improve resolution.

The very simple truth is that for telephoto work with fixed lens type and distance the camera with the smallest pixel pitch would give best detail reproduction.

So, a D7 would outresolve a D810 and a D7100 would outresolve D7 and a Nikon V1 would outesolve all of them. With a larger format you need a longer lens to fully take advantage of the image size.

Best regards
Erik

[NancyP]

Stuck inside on my back end. Otherwise, I would be out shooting.

Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures. On the other hand, I see people complain about autofocus speed on macro lenses and I think - huh? who uses AF at macro distances?  Focus confirm is a handy thing for macro, but AF not so much. It all comes down to different shooting constraints, different shooting styles, different needs of individual photographers.

[John Koerner]

To do that we need to either shot both on identical cameras or have MTF curves measured in similar setup.

Wow, this DxO comparison shows that the similarly-equipped Nikon literally blows Canon out of the water.


I appreciate all of the features in the new 7D II, but in macro shooting absolute sharpness is critical.

According to DxO, the comparably-equipped Nikon shooter has enough of an advantage to make me re-think everything I just said, lol 

Jack

[telyt]

Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93032.0

all manual focus

[melchiorpavone]

Stuck inside on my back end. Otherwise, I would be out shooting.

Melchior, I like manual focus for many situations, but simultaneously panning and focusing manually is a PITA, and there is no question that for non-predictable action (non-zone-focusable action), reliable autofocus is a godsend. Really good sports and wildlife photographers got great long telephoto shots in the old days, but the great shots tended to be zone focused set-ups, or otherwise the rare virtuoso technology-unassisted captures.

Rare? Are you kiddin'? This is hilarious in the extreme. I do it all the time.

[PFlah]

I actually asked why Canon did not make the lens a 200-560mm f/2.8 - 5.6 zoom. Might have been smaller and cheaper than playing with the built-in converter, and faster at the short end also. Maybe they were stuck with the idea of a zoom with converter, as it sounds more professional and has constant aperture, but in fact it is clumsier and has no continuous zoom range throughout. Reviewers and commentators have swallowed Canon's offering hook, line and sinker without asking the same question.

I am not doubting it is a good lens, but just askin'...

Would a Canon 200-400mm f/2-f/4 be feasible to build? Is there a reason we don't see professional superteles with variable aperture?