[barondla]

For the last 5 years most impartial photographers would say Nikon has built better camera bodies than Canon. It hasn't mattered. Since the Nikon D100 vs Canon (D60 I think), Nikon has slipped in DSLR sales against Canon. Nikon has throw every thing at the problem, including D800E without AA filter, and Ashton Kutcher. The gap still widens. My guess is the new 70D with "inferior" sensor will outsell the comparable Nikon. Kind of depressing in a way.
thanks
barondla

[Rondec]

For the last 5 years most impartial photographers would say Nikon has built better camera bodies than Canon. It hasn't mattered. Since the Nikon D100 vs Canon (D60 I think), Nikon has slipped in DSLR sales against Canon. Nikon has throw every thing at the problem, including D800E without AA filter, and Ashton Kutcher. The gap still widens. My guess is the new 70D with "inferior" sensor will outsell the comparable Nikon. Kind of depressing in a way.
thanks
barondla

But what percent of people actually know anything about DXO Mark scores? Certainly not the people who are going out to buy a Nikon D3200 or a Canon T2i. At most, they look at "number of megapixels." If you had a small, cheap point and shoot camera with 20 megapixels and an APS-C SLR with the same, people would have a difficulty time comparing them, believing that the sensors must be equivalent.

[Aegon]

I've been holding my tongue, but despite conceding that Nikon uses better sensors and makes better bodies, IMHO Canon images look better. And Canon has some sweet lenses, even if you do need to avoid some stinkers.

[barondla]

I agree Rondec. Think it goes further than that. Wouldn't be a bit surprised that the enthusiast 5DIII and 70D outsell the same class Nikon models. So then you have people who read all the sensor tests still buying more of the "worst" sensor. Fascinating.

Aegon, in what way do you think the Canon images look superior? I have a couple of friends that shoot both and they say Nikon is making the best bodies and Canon is making better highend lenses. Canon does make some tempting lenses like the 17mm T/S and that cool fisheye zoom. Enjoyed playing with a photographers Canon 800 5.6 too!
thanks
barondla

[Aegon]

Anecdotally, TOP once had a post that is similar to this thread: The Online Photographer: How Come Nikon Beats Canon So Badly?

A post on that thread tells a similar story to mine here, The Online Photographer: How Come Nikon Beats Canon So Badly?
In my case, I don't think Nikon is "fiddly," but I otherwise mostly agree with the poster.

Nikon (Sony) sensitivity is definitely better. Nikon (Sony) resolution (especially the D800) is definitely better, especially for landscapes. Nikon bodies are, IMO, better. These things count and Nikon takes all of these points. But none of this matters to me if I feel like another camera would take a better picture under the circumstances.

I've only tried the D90, D7000, and D600. I couldn't love any of these cameras. Maybe the D700/D3/D4 bodies would fare better.

With respect to PP, I feel like I have to "work" a Nikon file to make it look good. And after I've worked it I often still don't like it. But Canon looks good SOOC and even better after PP, and doesn't often lead me to dead-end photos. When I see all the B&W Nikon photos I chuckle and tell myself that I've been there before, and I don't want to go back. (Yes, some B&W is an artistic expression, but B&W is definitely there for wonky light that cannot be corrected, too).

I don't believe that Canon has more faithful colors, and I'm pretty sure Canon can occasionally smear texture even without provocation (especially in the red channels), but I forgive these errors because I like the look of the pictures (especially in the reds and yellows). If texture is the price I have to pay to get nice colors, then I'm willing to pay that price. I also prefer Nikon's bodies, ergos, pop-up flashes, DR, sensitivity, etc. But I don't feel short changed buying Canon.

To my eyes, Canon images are warmer, have better reds, yellows, and greens, and look more pleasing as an idealized moment that I want to remember. To my eyes, Nikon reds are weird, greens are weird, oversaturated colors in general, although detail retention and sensitivity are very strong. But I'd rather have a grainy picture with good skintones than a sharp picture with bad skintones.

I regularly use the HSL sliders in LR4 to adjust an image to my taste. I know that settings can be tweaked. Despite this, I believe that Canon is doing something else with their images to make people look better. For example, Canon could be reducing contrast strictly in the red channel (similar to a red filter on B&W). I wouldn't be able to see the tweak in a final image and I wouldn't know that such a change was made, but I would know that skin would generally look better. Another example might be using a warmer WB, but also moving the black point toward blue to cool the shadows, bringing balance to an image that would otherwise look too warm. This is the type of stuff I occasionally do with both Nikon and Canon files, though I work it harder on Nikon to get what I want and often don't need any such tweaking on Canon.

I think that Canon processes images better and that LR4 is tuned better for Canon. I don't need to know why or how. I know that isn't satisfying, it doesn't satisfy me, either.

[rawr]

It's fun to play with the colour rendering of camera body profiles in DxO Optics Pro
[Customize > Colour rendering > Camera, film, ICC profile > Camera body].

I find myself often using the 'Canon 5DMk2, Mk3, 1DX' profile on a K-5 or NEX image to deliver a pleasing colour result. It is also quite striking to see the variation in results even within the Canon family, let alone between Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

[Nesster]

Regarding color reproduction, here's a somewhat interesting test:
Nikon D7000 Review: Full Review - Imatest

[normhead]

I know guys with Canon 7Ds who swear by them. Of course it depends on what you're doing, but to assume Canon shooters are at some kind of disadvantage is just crazy. I was watching the US Open tennis last night, there was one lonely Nikon in a sea of Canons in the camera bay. If you know the limitations of your camera, and you use it to it's strength, then you should be OK.

Most of us use considerably less camera than we think we do. And most of us don't shoot images as good as some of the guys still shooting with 7Ds. They may not have the latest technology, but they have what they need.

[jsherman999]

I know guys with Canon 7Ds who swear by them. Of course it depends on what you're doing, but to assume Canon shooters are at some kind of disadvantage is just crazy. I was watching the US Open tennis last night, there was one lonely Nikon in a sea of Canons in the camera bay. If you know the limitations of your camera, and you use it to it's strength, then you should be OK. .

The FF Canon bodies seem to do much better, and Canon has a grip on the pro sports through support, sponsorships, lens-rental vouchers and the like.

It's in the lower and mid tiers that they've chosen to let their customers buy less for more... but, their customers don't seem to care, or in some cases don't realize it. Canon does have a fantastic stable of lenses, which mitigates things.

[jsherman999]

With respect to PP, I feel like I have to "work" a Nikon file to make it look good. And after I've worked it I often still don't like it. But Canon looks good SOOC and even better after PP, and doesn't often lead me to dead-end photos. .

To me this sounds most like an ACR/LR/PS camera-profile issue.... The D600 beats the 5DIII for example in color sensitivity all the way up through ISO 12800. I don't doubt your experiences, but I do doubt there's any sensor-related deficiency that explains it. Have you tried different profiles?

.

[jsherman999]

But what percent of people actually know anything about DXO Mark scores? Certainly not the people who are going out to buy a Nikon D3200 or a Canon T2i. .

I'd agree, those in the market for entry-level have probably not been doing much research... but more & more people are, because it's become so easy to do so. The younger shooters especially are going to run across things like DxOMark in their searches.

But, yes, mostly it's us "enthusiasts" who torture ourselves with these facts... hopefully not after the purchase, though

[Frogfish]

I've been holding my tongue, but despite conceding that Nikon uses better sensors and makes better bodies, IMHO Canon images look better. And Canon has some sweet lenses, even if you do need to avoid some stinkers.

Nikon seems to have the better WA lenses (e.g. 14-24), nothing in it mid-range whereas with long teles it swings from one to the other e.g. Canon's new 200-400 or Nikon's new 800. These lenses are too complicated to improve every couple of years and have longer cycles as the difference between brands is smaller. Don't forget users of expensive cameras will also use non-brand specific manufacturers such as Zeiss and the new, and superb, Sigma 'Art' range.

With regard to colours, it's well known that Canon do a little in-camera processing to deliver a better 'instant image' however if you want to take full advantage of the wider Nikon DR or high ISO noise handling then you need to be shooting RAW and it's then easy to set up colour profiles in LR or whatever program you are using for your PP.

[pinholecam]

There really is nothing too sobering about the sensors anymore.
They are all good enough nowadays despite us enthusiasts who like to pore thru the minute details and declare a 'eureka' moment.

I certainly don't see the lack of a better sensor stop enthusiasts from buying Canon (100D; 700D; 70D; 60D ), esp from the non-brand camera forum that I'm from.
Most uses make up their own mind already with a camera purchase.
Branding; perception of camera/brand capability (often limited and skewed); unique needs; preferences all play a bigger role in the purchase.
All samples and images look good for any camera be it prints at a camera sales booth or web images.


As such, the 70D is going to do as well as the 60D before it. (in brand perception and probably sales)

[Rondec]

I'd agree, those in the market for entry-level have probably not been doing much research... but more & more people are, because it's become so easy to do so. The younger shooters especially are going to run across things like DxOMark in their searches.

But, yes, mostly it's us "enthusiasts" who torture ourselves with these facts... hopefully not after the purchase, though

But... I wonder how much benefit even enthusiasts get out of these "improved" sensors. I believe that the extra color depth, dynamic range, and shadow detail that you see in Toshiba and Sony sensors is not readily visible in straight out of camera jpegs. And if the jpegs from my Canon look as good as my brother's jpegs from his Nikon, then who is the wiser?

I have discovered on this forum that people hate post processing with a passion (I actually enjoy it). But if you aren't planning on post processing, then it really doesn't matter very much which of these cameras you get, as long as it has all the features you believe you need.

[RyanW]

Anecdotally, TOP once had a post that is similar to this thread: The Online Photographer: How Come Nikon Beats Canon So Badly?

A post on that thread tells a similar story to mine here, The Online Photographer: How Come Nikon Beats Canon So Badly?
In my case, I don't think Nikon is "fiddly," but I otherwise mostly agree with the poster.

I agree with a lot of what you had said. On paper and lab tests, Nikon excels. In actual output, I prefer Canon.

This snippet of response in the TOP comments coincides with my thoughts.

"What the Nikon chip does seem to do flawlessly, is give me that over-contrasty, over-saturated "juiced" unnatural color..."

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nikon grass and trees look very unnatural. Canon's look much closer to reality. Canon wins on skin tone for me as well.

I think the Sony sensors in general don't do a great job with greens as so many cameras I've seen that use them don't have realistic grass and trees to my eyes. Pentax does a better job than most in tuning the green of the Sony sensor.