Are Canon losing their way in the DSLR market?

I had a foot in both camps but when Nikon went to 24/36mp I got rid of Nikon and stuck with Canon. Why? I don't need more than 18mp, more means more pc power, more HD capacity, bigger memory cards and I can do all I need with the 18mp I've got with Canon.

Both systems do the job and produce the goods. It all comes down to a personal opinion.
 
RichardtheSane said:
The answer is 'probably'

The question is, do current canon users actually want one?

Some do, sure. But how many in reality?
Click to expand...


Im sure a lot of them do and plenty have stated this.

Its funny this whole MP thing though.. everyone especially the nikon users said that the mk2 with its 22Mp (or what ever it is) was to many at the time and there was no need for so much.Canon users defended this non stop. Since the D800 release the tables have turned, with nikon users defending it and a lot of Canon users say theres no need and its too much.. cant wait to see what happens if canon do release there rumoured 54Mp camera.
 
Its more than just the sensor.
When the 7D came out its AF system was far in advance of anything else on the crop sensor market wasn't it ?
From all I read half the reason its yet to be replaced is its still selling well.

I've always thought the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is more about which one feels best in your hand rather than any sort of technical superiority on either side.
 
Craft said:
I've always thought the whole Nikon vs Canon thing is more about which one feels best in your hand rather than any sort of technical superiority on either side.
Click to expand...

Probably closer to the truth t.b.h. I have my Canon 7D and have had nearly every canon body leading up to that one at one time or another. I stick with Canon not from any kind of loyalty but because the bulk of my money has been invested in Canon fit lenses over the years, which I am more than happy with and far outweighs the odd difference in tech specs of cameras.

Now I also have a Nikon D200 (10mp :eek:) with a couple of very adequate lenses (but nothing stellar) which I leave in the car in a Lowepro slingshot all the time for those "Damn I wish I had a camera with me moments" (wouldn't do that with my Canon gear simply because of the value) The point is that on the occasions I do use the Nikon it feels so good in my hands and for all it would be worth I will probably never get rid of it. It really is a superb thing to hold and the it produces punchy images too. I have even used it as a backup camera at a few weddings. So go with what you like regardless of innovation.

All this spec envy is just a P*****g contest IMPO.

"My car is faster than yours", "My golf clubs are hi tech titanium", "My dog has 5 legs......!" :thinking: as long as that person is happy who gives a (insert your own word here) !
 
I dont understand what Canon are doing. The D3200 and D5200/5100 have incredible sensors and to see them on a beginner body is great. Canon sensors have nothing on Sonys which are only getting better whilst Canons stay the same; sure the sensor is only part of the camera (arguably the most important part) but what else are they doing? Adding a touch screen, marginally faster processor, mode dial which goes 360 degrees? Its all stuff that wouldnt make people buy a camera
I have a 100D at the moment and the pictures out of it are OK, they require a bit of post to look their best but the dynamic range is poor, colour depth is poor and high ISO performance is poor too, it starts to come in at ISO 800 which isnt even high by todays standard. I just dont understand how theyre doing it and I dont think its sustainable, soon enough people are gonna start realising theyre not getting their moneys worth and the lack of innovation/adding a touchscreen doesnt justify spending another few hundred £ on an upgrade.

Oh and by the way ive switched between Canon and Nikon 2 or 3 times so im not dedicated to either. I just know that if I was to buy a new DSLR it would be a Nikon. Why? Because I dont buy into all the useless stuff Canon add; hybrid sensor thing which doesnt work, touch & articulating screen, 360 mode dial, etc. I also have no interest in video. Dynamic range, colour depth and low light performance are more important to me.
 
Last edited:
Thrash said:
The D3200 and D5200/5100 have incredible sensors and to see them on a beginner body is great. Canon sensors have nothing on Sonys which are only getting better whilst Canons stay the same

Oh and by the way ive switched between Canon and Nikon 2 or 3 times so im not dedicated to either. I just know that if I was to buy a new DSLR it would be a Nikon. Why? Because I dont buy into all the useless stuff Canon add;

Dynamic range, colour depth and low light performance are more important to me.

I have a 100D at the moment and the pictures out of it are OK, they require a bit of post to look their best but the dynamic range is poor, colour depth is poor and high ISO performance is poor too, it starts to come in at ISO 800 which isnt even high by todays standard.
Click to expand...

You just have bought a new SLR ! Canons latest consumer level camera. The only advise you need to listen to is your own and maybe do a bit more research first.... :naughty:
 
Last edited:
Gazamonk said:
You just have bought a new SLR ! Canons latest entry level camera. The only advise you need to listen to is your own and maybe do a bit more research first.... :naughty:
Click to expand...

I wont be keeping it. I did do my research and the 100D interested me, I like it as a camera but it just reminded me why my last one was a Nikon.
 
As long as you're happy that's all that matters and its the most important point about these "what camera is better" debates. I just used your post for a bit of light hearted leg pulling. :wave:
 
Last edited:
Gazamonk said:
As long as you're happy that's all that matters and its the most important point about these "what camera is better" debates. I just used your post for a bit of light hearted leg pulling. :wave:
Click to expand...

I agree, I'm not saying Nikon is better than Canon because I don't think it's necessarily true. Nikon is just better for me as I'm sure Canon is better for many others :)
 
redsnappa said:
Are Canon losing their way in the DSLR market?

It’s just while their competitors are forging ahead and releasing dslr’s with better and better sensors for example NIkon's D800 and D7100 are better products than the Canon equivalents.

Canon’s recent DSLR releases when compared to Nikon's have been a bit of a damp squid as Canon has chosen to equip their last SEVEN new DSLRS (550D,
600D, 650D, 700D, 100D, 7D, and 60D) with the very same 18MP sensor.

It seems as if Canon have bought in a job lot of these 18MP sensors and will not release a camera with a new sensor until they’ve shifted the all they bought.

While canon are hesitating in developing new sensors for their new range of cameras the likes of Nikon are enjoying the extra sales that come from being proactive in bringing newer better technology to customers.

Although I use Canon at the moment I have no loyalty to them consequently if money was no object I would change to Nikon without hesitation, they are at the moment the more progressive camera manufacturer.
Click to expand...

probably already been said but they are not the same sensors
 
Flippin eck! at a quick glance I almost read that as priapism! However thats a hard topic to discuss openly here. LMAO

Nice one David. :naughty:
 
Gazamonk said:
Thats what i lke to see, a well reasoned and thoroughly researched counter argument....... :naughty::lol:
Click to expand...

Actually it is! :D

As far as press snappers go the D800 over resolves, to the point that several have either dumped them for a D4, reverted to a D700 or, in Nikon's worst case scenario, chopped their kit in for Canon stuff.

Obviously the D800 is better for some genres- studio, portrait etc etc- but for stuff that moves the 5DIII whacks it firmly on the head.


So, yup, he's wrong!
 
I know it is ! so why didn't you say all that in your post :shrug: lol ;) you shy thing you, say what you think we wont judge. :naughty:

Good points though and just shows what a subjective question this is. There will never be a definitive resolution but it does bring out some interesting opinions etc and that is what a forum discussion should be.
 
srichards said:
Canon have always struck me as a staid and steady brand that make the camera equivalent of a Ford Mondeo. It's capable rather than exciting.

When was the last time canon did something ground breaking?
Click to expand...

Video on a dslr with the 5d mk2 and the 7d? Heavily used in production now for the quality, price and small size.
 
Gazamonk said:
I know it is ! so why didn't you say all that in your post :shrug: lol ;) you shy thing you, say what you think we wont judge. :naughty:
Click to expand...

Because I'd just been shooting horses for seven hours solidly without a break. I was soaking, knackered and could be bothered apart from pointing out the obvious that the comment was wrong!
 
Not read any of the replies but the 5D3 is probably the best bang for buck camera ever made by Canon, and the best I've used so don't know how you can say they're not keeping up.

I can shoot wildlife half hour after sunset at crazy ISO and still come away with worthy sellable and printable images, not sure what else you need?
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Because I'd just been shooting horses for seven hours solidly without a break. I was soaking, knackered and could be bothered apart from pointing out the obvious that the comment was wrong!
Click to expand...


lol fair comment.

I do hope you are talking photographically by the way otherwise that's a lot of dead horses in seven hours. :exit:
 
as a non CaNikon user but somebody that started using SLRs back in the 70s (manual focus, limited ISO media that you couldn't change for every shot & needed replacing every 24 or 36 shots etc. etc.) can I just say that they are all damned good & you don't know how lucky you are ... But you try and tell the young people today that… and they won't believe ya'. ;)
Seriously, all (not just CaNikon) bodies these days are at least good albeit some may be better. They are highly evolved so improvements tend to be small increments.

& whilst Sony's sensors have higher DR at low ISO Canon's have better DR at high ISO so you pick your poison accordingly.
& of course the DSLR market is a very strange one because of the drag of existing glass - I can't think of any other market which has such a disincentive to change manufacturer (after all you don't go to buy a car & buy a couple of spare engines & gear boxes along with your new car body).
 
I agree in part with the OP. The consumer end of the Canon range is loosing it’s way with the Nikons being updated with some good features. The pro range however is easily on a par and in the 1DX’s case - excelling Nikon’s offerings. I’d have a 5D Mark III over a D800, I don’t see the need in such huge resolution for my needs, or that of most pros tbh. It’s more just like a cheap medium format camera. I think Nikon should have given the D800~24mp, then brought out a D800x or similar with the full 36mp. You could argue the D600 is that camera but it isn’t a pro body.

Besides all of this the 5D’s images just look better to me, maybe not necessarily in IQ but just the look they have to them seems a bit more magical for the lack of a better word. I’m sure I’ll get shot down in flames for that comment on this forum but non the less my opinion is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Niall97 said:
Besides all of this the 5D’s images just look better to me, maybe not necessarily in IQ but just the look they have...
Click to expand...

That's all the justification a camera needs. Photography is a visual art so how the images look is everything :D
 
arad85 said:
Compare like for like - Canon crop sensors are not as good as other crop sensors. Canon FF sensors are not as good as other FF sensors. The dynamic range available tails off at lower ISOs on Canon sensors (in fact, the D3200 & CSCs such as the OM-D E-M5 beats the 5D3 on dynamic range below ISO 400).

Go and check out DxO if you don't believe me.

Canons sensors are behind the curve. The OP is right.
Click to expand...

The DxO charts are a load of fud. the OP is wrong. you cant compare like that and a camera is not all about sensor tech as people have already mentioned.

i dont know but it seems the OP is trying to start a canon vs nikon fight here
 
heidfirst said:
as a non CaNikon user but somebody that started using SLRs back in the 70s (manual focus, limited ISO media that you couldn't change for every shot & needed replacing every 24 or 36 shots etc. etc.) can I just say that they are all damned good & you don't know how lucky you are ... But you try and tell the young people today that… and they won't believe ya'. ;)
Click to expand...

That's the thing with technology, it is continuously advancing and something better is always around the corner. All helps to feed the capitalist/consumerist never finding contentment thing (sorry, gone a bit buddhist there :) )
 
jonneymendoza said:
The DxO charts are a load of fud.
Click to expand...
Why? Genuinely interested in why people think that BTW.

At least they are quantifiable - and IME - have been reasonable when comparing the different cameras I've owned (and when I've cross checked with DR tests I've seen elsewhere).
 
You don't want quantifiable, better to go by people's anecdotal and biased view of their products isn't it :)
 
arad85 said:
Why? Genuinely interested in why people think that BTW.

At least they are quantifiable - and IME - have been reasonable when comparing the different cameras I've owned (and when I've cross checked with DR tests I've seen elsewhere).
Click to expand...

Not real world tests though. lots of other reviewers can hardly tell the difference in DR.

Its like saying that the new 780GTX GPU is 10% slower yet in real world usage you cant tell the difference between a 780GTX and a Titan GPU
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not real world tests though. lots of other reviewers can hardly tell the difference in DR.
Click to expand...
You only find the problems when you are pushing the processing - recovering highlights and pushing shadows. The differences become real world then - and many people don't test the extremes like that....

As I said, Canon sensors are lagging behind.
 
arad85 said:
You only find the problems when you are pushing the processing - recovering highlights and pushing shadows. The differences become real world then - and many people don't test the extremes like that....

As I said, Canon sensors are lagging behind.
Click to expand...

There are some amazing clips on Youtube comparing Canon and Nikon DR. When the shadows are pushed the Nikon leaves the Canon for dead and makes it look like something from the steam age... but as you said these things only come into play when pushing what's possible.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not real world tests though. lots of other reviewers can hardly tell the difference in DR.
Click to expand...

They are not very good reviewers then. If they are going to make comments about DR they need to have actually tested it via highlights and shadows otherwise what exactly are they able to conclude about DR?
 
Sensor technology may be nikons forte at the moment and images I've seen from a D800 look great even when cropped heavily but, to me that's all the D800 has going for it. I think that as an all round camera the 5D3 can comfortably compete with the 800.

I contemplated changing systems some time ago as I felt that canon were slipping behind. The introduction of the 1DX was a big step in the right direction but removing the MkIV from the line up a big mistake IMHO. I've recently bought a 5D3 and think it's very good. Hardly used my MkIV since. Not really missing the 1.3 crop and seriously thinking about selling the MkIV for a 1DX. I know 2 people who have D800's and 2 more who had them but sold them so even among Nikon users it divides opinion. The ones who sold bought D4's. It's not always about the print size or ability to crop.
 
The 5D MK 3 looked to me like a 5D MK 2.5, not enough to warrant changing systems completely. It's probably the camera the 5D MK II should have been. The D800 is snapping at the heels of the £20k medium format cameras, it's an incredible camera for the money. Canon don't have anything like it yet.
 
Laudrup said:
The 5D MK 3 looked to me like a 5D MK 2.5, not enough to warrant changing systems completely. It's probably the camera the 5D MK II should have been. The D800 is snapping at the heels of the £20k medium format cameras, it's an incredible camera for the money. Canon don't have anything like it yet.
Click to expand...

They are different cameras for different markets. Where one excels, the other fails and vice-versa. Is that really so difficult to understand?

As for the 5D2½ comment... you clearly haven't used it (properly).
 
Gaz J said:
Sensor technology may be nikons forte at the moment and images I've seen from a D800 look great even when cropped heavily but, to me that's all the D800 has going for it. I think that as an all round camera the 5D3 can comfortably compete with the 800.

I contemplated changing systems some time ago as I felt that canon were slipping behind. The introduction of the 1DX was a big step in the right direction but removing the MkIV from the line up a big mistake IMHO. I've recently bought a 5D3 and think it's very good. Hardly used my MkIV since. Not really missing the 1.3 crop and seriously thinking about selling the MkIV for a 1DX. I know 2 people who have D800's and 2 more who had them but sold them so even among Nikon users it divides opinion. The ones who sold bought D4's. It's not always about the print size or ability to crop.
Click to expand...

whats laughable is teh fact Nikon dont make there own sensors, they just sue sony's.

Canon at least engineer it themselves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top