The cruel lab rats at DxOMark have completed a test of the latest Nikon D5500
APS-C SLR. The comparison page shows that you would have to be suffering from a serious vision impairment to want to purchase a Canon 70D. The Nikon offers 2.5 f-stops more dynamic range (ability to capture both shadows and highlights in the same photo). The Nikon also has somewhat better low-light performance. The Canon SLR scores about as well as a Sony pocket-sized point and shoot camera.
Who wants to take a crack at explaining how Canon continues to be the market leader in higher-end digital cameras? (press release)
Is that a Sony sensor in the D5500? The dynamic range graph in the link tracks very closely with the A6000. Wonder what percentage of Canon sales is repeat buyers who just don’t want to start over with lenses/accessories?
Would the D5300 be better? You get GPS and give up the touch screen.
It’s easier to explain their continued lead in higher-end cameras. My theory is that Canon cameras still do very well in typical photography situations. Most pro photographers doing studio or location work with strobes can control the lighting to the point where low light or some extra range doesn’t matter in most cases (same goes for natural light photography in well-lit environments). Additionally, many photographers have a collection of Canon lenses and accessories and aren’t willing to learn a new system just to gain a little more quality. I keep hoping they’ll get their act together by the time I need a new body.
I’m not sure why they still do so well on the lower end. I suppose they’ve got a great reputation and compete well on the features. Smart buyers who aren’t invested in a system should buy something with a Sony sensor. However, it could be a completely different picture in 18 months (or whenever Canon gets around to innovating).
Past dominance, current marketing?
Long answer here:
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/47494/what-does-a-dynamic-range-difference-of-2-7-ev-really-represent
The shorter version is that dynamic range does not tell the whole story and that you are buying a whole camera system and not just a sensor. No matter how you spin it, the Nikon does have a better sensor but that’s not the end of the discussion.
Remind me again, what is the dynamic range film?
We tried to switch to the Nikon D810 from the (inferior) Canon 5D Mark III, and we do use the D810 for many tasks, but whenever we shoot portraits and weddings, we still pick up the Canon… the Canon 70-200 f2.8 is just vastly better than the Nikon version.
In the sports and wildlife world, the Canon 7D Mark II rules mostly because of it’s crazy AF system and 10 FPS. Nikon just has nothing similar. We have the D7200 now but it’s nowhere near as good at action as the 7D2. The Nikon’s image quality is better, but to go from 10 FPS to 6 FPS is too painful.
Casual photography? Well, we tend to pick up the smaller a7 II. Product photography? E-M5 II’s high-res mode.
Video is on Panasonic or Sony.
So the D810 is relegated to landscapes & night photography, mostly because the D810 has ISO 64 and all those pixels.
http://120studio.com/dynamic-range.htm is kind of interesting regarding what film can do. Ansel Adams used only 11 f-stops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System#Exposure_zones (i.e., almost exactly what a modern Canon SLR can do)
Not surprising, Canon would have to make massive investments in its imaging sensor fab to be competitive again, and that is unlikely in a contracting market.
Tony Northrup has a point – the only reason I bought a 5DmkIII instead of the D800E is the excellence of the 24-70mm f/2.8LII (although today my most commonly used cameras today are mirrorless Fuji X-T1, X100 and Sony RX1). That said, Nikon’s well-publicized QA issues with the D800 (AF sensor misalignment), D600 (shutter debris on sensor) and now D750 (banding) certainly haven’t helped.
A big part of success in the marketplace has to do with factors completely unrelated to product quality, i.e. marketing in the wider sense, including distribution (the ability to get products on retailers’ shelves). That’s one reason why Samsung cameras are doing so poorly despite being arguably superior in many respects.
My target shoots are sports car racing (Lime Rock Park, Conn.) and road bike racing (New England pro/am), and whatever catches my eye. Camera bodies are Canon 1D series. Lots invested in Canon L series lenses (6 total). If I were to start fresh today I’d seriously consider Nikon. I’m staying with Canon mostly because of the lenses. I know they’re not perfect but they’re perfect enough for me. Over the years I’ve learned the limitations of each lens. And not once have I ever thought to myself, wish I had a better lens. Any flaws in the image are my fault.
All my equipment is bought through B&H. I like the ease of trading-in an older lens design for a newer copy. Not always the most cost effective way to upgrade, but always the least hassle and aggravation. At least that’s been my experience.
I sell a few prints a year and may take on a few commissions. I usually upgrade camera bodies every other generation. I’m due to upgrade to whatever replaces the 1Dx if I think the performance boost (image quality, dynamic range) is there. Canon 1D series are a handful, big and heavy. And off-putting (intimidating) when trying to do candid street shooting. If Canon ever comes out with a decent mirrorless that will accept my lenses without a fuss, I’ll be there.
You had some good words to say about Canon in 2008.
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2008/12/06/new-canon-5d-and-1980s-japanophobia/
It used to be that Canons were the only DSLRs that recorded video in a directly editable, standard file format (H.264 MOV), while their competitors all required awkward conversions out of proprietary formats. A fantastic sensor is no use if its output is locked up in a closed format.
Now it seems like Nikon writes out MOVs too now, good to see that!
I have a lot of Canon equipment. After reading this I am tempted to buy a Sony A6000. Phil: Do you still like A6000?