Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... you're living proof that Canon users jump ship for a reason .....

.....

br Loc: NY

Disregard my previous comment !! because I used some wrong words in my comment, so, I would like to remove them but system did not allow that. Specifically some words after "...cheap on product ...". So, disregard them. Here is my the same comment in more appropriate words:......................................................

...For that comparison it would be very useful to know both models - may be they are in different classes. But anyway, as I heard, even 2 cameras of the same brand-model are sometimes perform very different, especially if they bought at significantly different times (say in 2-3 years - never heard about that? then you should talk to older people more often). It is very possible - remember MAJOR note on all manuals of all manufacturers: Specifications are subject to change without notice (or something like that)? Which means the quality and even specifications data themselves can be very different on the same model, i.e. even MAJOR SPECIFICATIONS CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE Still THE SAME IN THE Manuals !!! I.e. all millimeters, all numbers, etc. i.e. all data reflecting ALL MAJOR PARAMETERS of CAMERAS and LENSES including QUALITY CAN BE DIFFERENT, and NOT THE SAME !!! That means at any time you may buy not what you think you buy, though it looks the same (that is the problem - you can't notice difference). Sorry!! It happens! When company has problems like financial, or bad market, or whatever they start cheap on product without notice !! And ALL BRANDS IN THE WORLD do that IN ALL MARKET SEGMENTS, not only in photo, but also in auto, computer, furniture, houses, pens, paper, etc. !! Sorry again.

...That means there is no sense in comparison EVEN the same model-manufacturer made even at the same week !!! yet not talking about different years, OR EVEN WORSE - Comparing different Brands !! ALL THOSE Comparisons Become Nonsense !! ...And in that reason if, for example, Canon has larger diameter of lenses (which allows to have more light, which is one of most important parameters of lenses) that does not mean that ALL its lenses are BETTER, because to make good lens is VERY expensive (especially in large diameters) and only high professional will want to pay that price, THOUGH this feature leaves more possibilities for Canon (when Canon will decide so) to make lenses better than other brands with smaller lens diameters including Nikon at any time (if i am right), etc. - assuming the glass quality for Canon and other brands are the same, otherwise we again can't compare because Nikon can compensate lens small diameter with better glass quality (which in my opinion is more expensive). On other hand Canon makes more cameras than any other brand (if again i am right) which make manufacturing cost less than competitive and have more financial possibilities to make better (better quality, better output inspection, etc.) but again - it is not a physical law (nobody can change it) or legal law (nobody should change it), it is only possibilities which can be realized into reality or not (when Canon will decide so). All that is relevant to any other brand - Nikon, Sony, Minolta, Panasonic, etc. So, comparing quality IS NONSENSE because comparison should involve test statistics which is changing every day! We actually can compare only Specification data of different models/brands (falsely believing that we really compare), but making decisions which brand is better by comparing images of 2 specific cameras is absolute nonsense. That conclusion is only valid for those 2 specific cameras.

... To say that all cameras of Canon are better than all cameras of Nikon (or opposite) we have to collect all cameras (not just samples because people use all of them and not just samples) of both brands and make tests for all, then that statistics will show, for example, that 10% of Canon models (for example models #4, 7, 11, 57, ..., 91) are best in reliability (i.e. 95% of cameras in each mentioned model confirmed that) and 9% Nikon's models #2, 5, 22 are best in reliability (i.e. 95% of cameras in each mentioned model confirmed that), 15% of Nikon's cameras (models # ....) are best in lenses (i.e. 95% of ....) and 14% of Canon cameras (models # ....) are best in lenses (i.e. 95% of ...), and similar tests in other parameters like in low lighting, special options, movie recording, quality degradation, etc, etc., and no one model of both brands is best in all test parameters together!! - I believe that is possible too - no one is perfect! Concluding all that tests - you should look at result, find your model and decide - to cry (if your model is not the best in your major requirements) or celebrate victory if -yes. But wait - what if your camera is in opposite part of statistics - those 5% of non-confirmed? Then instead of crying you should l celebrate, and opposite - instead of celebration you should cry. Complicated ? Welcome to BASICS of statistics !! And because nobody's camera was tested in all or even some specific tests then nobody can be sure of which is better or not unless is compared directly with other model, BUT NOT TRUE FOR Comparing BRANDS !! Actually only manufacturers really know the true, i.e. statistics of tests, because they definitely test at least their own cameras. And as I know many photographers first buy to try - and they are right !! There are too many statistical deviations and also lack of info to make right decision based only on available info from specs or salespersons. When you buy you can be luck even with cheap model too and wondering for many following years - how could it happen?

...But if all those companies would merged then you can imagine the cameras they could make, their quality, and prices !!
And for now each company tries to make its new model just little bit better or cheaper (never together) than competitor's model. And we are still asking: which brand is better?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

BR, are you serious?!
You must be a sleep therapist. :-) :lol:
SS

br Loc: NY

I believe yes - i am serious (may be not very smart, but serious). And what do you mean "sleep therapist"?

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

How about a Speed Graphic 8x10? It'll blow a Nikon or Canon out of the park with a decent lens. :)

All of this debate is relative and ultimately pointless :)

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

There is NO WAY Nikon would support Bull dog fighting. Forget the legal aspects, to do such a thing would be corporate suicide. People would avoid Nikon like a plague and so would their sponsors. Then when you mix in the legal aspects Nikon would be ruined. No company/corporation would ever want their name synonymous with such a volatile subject. Just my opinion. As far as who takes better photos, Nikon or Canon is subjective. Both are very capable cameras and each has it own pros and cons. Nikon does seem to have a larger piece of the market but that should not prevent you from picking a camera which has the features you want and a price you can afford.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

There is a distinct difference between Nikon and Canon images straight from the camera.

I prefer Nikon bodies but image quality depends on so much more than the camera.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Although there is not such thing as an 8x10 speed graphic, good point. I tried to make a similar point earlier as I shoot medium format and large format. The Canon/ Nikon argument is pointless.

br Loc: NY

joer "There is a distinct difference between Nikon and Canon images straight from the camera.

I prefer Nikon bodies but image quality depends on so much more than the camera."


joer, may i ask you:
1 - what exactly do you mean by that "distinct difference between Nikon and Canon images straight from the camera"?
2 - and how have you compared them (i mean what test have confirmed that, on which models and lenses)?

I believe there can be difference, even from design point of view - like may be data interpretation (data received from sensor), or evaluation of those data, or whatever, especially in colors data (because colors can be interpreted in very different ways, as i know there is still no any agreements between companies or any standards in interpreting data), but ultimately any difference in design should not much affect image quality in negative ways. Because if it does then sooner or later it will became obvious for customers and company will loose financially. Besides, any company can fix its earlier serious design mistakes (if one did, which i doubt) very easy (again without notice) and quality will be again very competitive. That is why joer's statement is very interesting for me (personally i have not decide yet too which brand-model to buy - I even consider non-DSLR like Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leika, Panasonic small but not bad bridge models with not changeable lenses and with extra zoom up to 1000...1200 mm - yes, to watch moon too). So, I am really interested in all opinions but i will consider them only with appropriate data confirming them, and i advice that for everybody).

So, ultimately our decision should be based on choosing right combination (very personal) of most important and secondary parameters: size of sensor, resolution, auto-focus abilities, lens zooming and lightness, lens sharpness, low light ability, shooting rate, file format (RAW, JPEG), video rate and format, flashlight, body material/sealing, additional shooting and editing options, viewfinder/LCD, memory cards, batteries life, etc. But we will never find model having all best parameters because no one company is interested in that - otherwise what will it sell tomorrow? So, if any model has noticeably better image (which i personally doubt) then that model has some other very not favorable parameters! Has anybody any examples contradicting that?

br Loc: NY

Also I would like to add to my own comment of Jan 4, 14 18:18:41 regarding which brand is better.

There is some info about scientific achievements of some companies like equipment for NASA, for TV news companies at Olympic games, world championships, etc. etc. Actually it does not have much sense even to talk about that - why? because you don't really think that you will get that kind of quality when you buy you camera for $3-5 thousands ? or even for $1,200 ? no? thank you, you are right. Yes, of course that means something, specifically - those companies can do science research and can make very high quality equipment, but tools for making that equipment is not on conveyer for making your camera! because that is completely different business and manufacturing tasks, that is why. Or am I wrong? Though if anybody will want to buy again that equipment then it will be significantly cheaper then for NASA, etc.
In fact any 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th class lens company can make better and cheaper lenses than leading companies, why ? because they don't spend much money (if any) on research, on advertisements, etc. and can make good lens just by taking better glass and polishing them longer (better) - that is it (even you can do it - I am not kidding! remember first lens makers? they even did not have drills!!). That technology is old and well known, and very good equipment for that exists long ago. And they can sell lenses little bit cheaper than leading companies and at the same time having even more income because there are no expenses on research, etc. They don't need to make equipment for NASA in order to satisfy you so much that after buying their lens you will check it twice a night - if it is still in place. That is why there so many lens companies - just little bit cheaper than of leading companies. And this market is REALLY GROWING !!
And if speaking about sensors and cameras themselves - situation is the same: sensors are the same made by few companies and used by all, and digital technology is also became common knowledge at least 20 years ago. What does all that mean? it means there is no necessity (almost no because there is still very small way ahead to reach almost perfect design, like in personal computers) for any company to participate in science or anything else to develop almost perfect (reasonable enough) camera for professionals and especially for amateurs. How much do you need pixels for daylight? and for low light? How many do you need frames per sec? 1000? It can be got sooner than you think. The question is again - are manufacturers really interested in giving away to you all your dream features for $1-5 thousands right away ? ...Sure. And we still asking which brand is better?

...Coming back to what we started with - there is no sense in listening those "equipment for NASA, TV news companies at Olympic games, World championships, etc" !! it is not relevant to your camera! Forget about that and just check yourself every brand for what you need - you can find goodies everywhere.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

Woops! Yes, the 4x5 is what I was thinking of... The 8x10 would be a Deardorff.