Canon stuff

[Timppa]

Ok, So I'm a Nikon user, I know pretty much most of all the gear from and for nikon, the differences in bodies, lenses, etc...
But I'm a bit lost with Canon .
How do there series add up ? What is like the equal to a D7200/D500 or D750/D810/D5 ?
I also noticed there is a 51mpix camera , Is that then the equal to the D810?
And how do I know when a lens is made for DX? with Nikon it says... DX. Does it say on canon to? Or did I just miss it every time I read information about it ? xD
Maybe something in my brain doesn't understand Canon -.-'

The thing is, I love wildlife and landscape! Currently I have this:
Tamron 16-300 (I love it for travel, but I'm missing quality so much >.<)
D7100 (Great camera, but i would love more fps and better noise handling, its pretty bad at it :/)
Nikkor 200-500, Love it.
I used to have the Tokina 11-16, but sold it so I could get another uwa (like the new tamron 10-24 for example), But so far something inside of me told me not to buy it yet, plus its 700€ in Finland >.<.

Anyway, I started to get concerned latelty :3. Me and my wife love to travel. And I'm concerned about taking the 200-500 everywhere.
I also would like to upgrade from the D7100 to something else and replace the Tamron with a great wide angle lens. I had many ideas in my mind from having a DX with zoom for wildlife while travelling and a FX with a nikkor 16-35 or something.
This way I can put the 16-35 also on the DX and get a bit closer if needed, or put the wildlife zoom on the FX, etc... So many ideas o_o

Since my wife really seems the love Canon, every since she had a small compact camera from 10 years ago, I was wondering to just check the Canon market out there. I'm not saying I will make the switch, but it would be great to be informed and learn more about it.
I also like the fact (that many people seem to dislike), that Canon has 1.6 cropfacter instead of 1.5.
It means I can get a little closer again with a zoomlens.
A perfect match would be something like a 14-35 lens F2.8 or F.4 that I can use on FX or DX (making it a 22-56),
and a 100-300 lens FX F2.8 or F.4 that would be a 160-480 on a DX.
(All of this together reaching 14 up to 56 and 100 up to 480).
..and all of this for an attractive price... Is canon cheaper than Nikon? Or about the same?

wooh, lots of questions, don't have to answer them all . Main info about the differences in Canon would be already a great help, and I can do the rest of research myself then. Just wanted to give the whole story^^

Thanks!

 

[john.margetts]

Canon DX lenses are called EF-S lenses - they not physically fit to a full-time camera.. As for your question about Nikon/Canon equivalence, 3 and 4 digit Canon cameras are strictly amateur, 2 digit cameras are prosumer, and single digit are professional. The top crop sensor Canon at the moment us the 80D.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk

 

[Timppa]

ok, so less digits = better .
apart from 1fps and 1mp more, and according to DXO actually a bit worse on the noise, you could say the 80D = the D7100? making the D7500 and D500 still a better option at the Nikon side. hmm interesting .

 

[Gary A.]

It used to be that Canon and Nikon didn't really compete level-to-level. They were like a half step difference. If you were looking at a certain Nikon, the 'equivalent' Canon would be either a half step better or a half step worse.

 

[TCampbell]

On the Canon side, there's a low-end and high-end of the "entry level" range.

Entry level bodies:

The low-end side of the range have four digit number such as the Canon EOS 1300D (or 1200D, or 1100D, etc.)
Still in the entry range but toward the higher end are cameras that have only 3 digit model numbers such as the 800D, 760D, 750D, 700D, etc.
BTW, in the north-american market these cameras have the word "Rebel" in the name. In Asia the same cameras have the word "Kiss" in the name. I'm not entirely sure why Canon does that in the different markets but they only do it with these entry-level range cameras.
The cameras with higher numbers are more recent models (an 800D is "this years" model... the 750D and 760D were two variations on "last years" model and the 700D was released the year prior to that, etc.

Mid-range bodies:

Canon uses 2-digit numbers for their mid-range bodies. These are things like the 80D, 77D, and 70D, etc.
As before, the higher the numeric value, the more recent the camera. The 80D is "this years" model, the 70D was the previous generation (the 77D is actually very new and was introduced to fit between... it's sort of a higher-end 800D).
Canon's mid-range cameras begin to include features found on pro bodies but still retain some of the entry-level friendliness of entry-bodies. For example if you like to use the "scene" based shooting modes (e.g. "portrait" mode or "action" mode, etc. those modes still exist.) Canon's mid-range bodies also introduce some weather-sealing features. The 80D stands out a bit because it's performance is amazing. It's so good that it give the 7D Mk II a run for it's money. Specifically I understand the sensor on the 80D beats the 7D II in ISO performance. I think the 7D II still beats the 80D in several other categories.

Pro-range bodies:
These cameras just use single-digit model numbers but here it can get a bit more confusing because the bodies tend to be optimized towards various uses.
The 6D is an "entry level" full-frame camera. So in full-frame cameras, entry-level is actually still pretty nice. But Canon was trying to reduce the cost of entry into the normally-expensive full-frame market. Some would argue that the 6D isn't really a "pro" body and that's probably true. Most pro's who want a full-frame body will likely go with the 1D X II or one of the 5D bodies such as the 5D IV.
The 7D Mark II is optimized toward action photography. It has an APS-C sensor, but a blazingly fast continuous burst speed, an extra-large internal memory buffer, dual processors to help speed things along, a very technical focus system, and is weather-sealed and a bit of tank (robust build -- magnesium alloy body). This is Canon's best "APS-C" size sensor body.
The 5D Mark IV is a full-frame camera, with a higher ISO sensitivity (with lower noise) then most of the rest of the line (except for the flagship camera), also a highly technical focus system, weather-sealed, robust build (magnesium alloy body). Also it's a 30MP camera.
The 5Ds and 5Dsr are both 50MP cameras. Use these (paired with high-end glass) where you need extremely high resolution (typically images that you plan to display in very large size because 50MP is far more then one can normally use). However with this ultra-high resolution, the ISO performance is actually not as good as the 5D IV. This makes the 5D IV the better general purpose camera (if I were shooting events, weddings, etc. then I'd grab the 5D IV over the 5Ds or 5Dsr). But if you were doing detailed landscapes (no need to boost iso because you can just use a longer exposure time) or studio photography (where there's no need to use high ISO because the studio has a nice lighting system) then these might be just the ticket.

Flagship:
The 1D X Mark II is the flagship camera. It's a full-frame body with amazing high-speed shooting (very large internal buffer), a very "technical" camera. It's sensor resolution is not as high as the 5D IV -- it's a 20MP sensor. But it's the highest ISO and dynamic range of any camera in the lineup (I think DxO said it comes very close to the best Sony sensor and it actually beats all the Nikons in DR). I don't own one of these and have no personal experience with it. If you were a hard-core pro shooting a lot of action photography, this might be the camera for you.

 

[goodguy]

Want to get a whole lot of reach for relative little money in relative compact size of lens and body ?
I have the Panasonic G7 which I got for 500$ with kit lens, add to that the Panasonic 100-300mm which is equivalent to 200-600mm
Very good and small set and very reasonably priced.
Mind you the auto focus isn't as good as a DSLR but if size and weight and price is important then this is a good travel set.
I have Nikon cameras which I love the most but my Panasonic isn't a bad option for fun, non professional trips.

 

[Timppa]

@TCampbell
Wow, Thank you for all this gold information. I finally start to understand the differences a bit.
IT sounds that the 7D Mark II and the 5D Mark IV are the camera's I should look into more.
Those 50mpix camera's are just overkill for me!

@goodguy
Thanks for your input as well, I will keep this in consideration as well, Going from a DSLR to a mirrorless has crossed my mind as well at one point.

But first learning more about Canon, and I have a golden start with Tim Campbell's information !

 

[beagle100]

@TCampbell
Wow, Thank you for all this gold information. I finally start to understand the differences a bit.
IT sounds that the 7D Mark II and the 5D Mark IV are the camera's I should look into more.
Those 50mpix camera's are just overkill for me!

@goodguy
Thanks for your input as well, I will keep this in consideration as well, Going from a DSLR to a mirrorless has crossed my mind as well at one point.

But first learning more about Canon, and I have a golden start with Tim Campbell's information !

good to know, but if you like travel and lightweight camera gear look at the mirrorless options and small "pancake" lenses
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless