Should I switch brands?

[Derrel]

The simple fact is, that even at base ISO levels, Canon's current sensors suffer from patterned noise problems...this is why Nikon is kicking Canon's ass. There's a small but dedicated group of Canon fans who try their best to argue against simple science, and who continually try to cast doubt on DxO Mark's results. Over and over and over, these guys spend time and effort trying to call into question/discredit/badmouth/slander/libel the efforts of DxO Mark.

Part II - Controlled tests

look at the pictures. Same exact lens, a Zeiss 25mm, used on the two bodies. One sucks when underexposed, or the shadows are recovered. The Sony-made sensor on the other hand, has amazing shadow quality, with virtually no noise. Look at the images, then go look at the DxO Mark scores, and see for yourself.

Oh-and this test? Performed by none other than Fred Miranda himself...a dedicated Canon owner and user. Huh...

People who claim that there is not a well-known, very real, very significant patterned noise problem with Canon's sensors are lying to you. Period. Just LOOK at the images. SEE it with your own two eyes. And then ask yourself, "Why do these guys try sooooo hard to discredit those who dare point out the truth?" Why? Why is that?

Once again...just LOOK. Part II - Controlled tests

 

[Braineack]

they fixed the banding on the 7Dmii, now you just get nice rgb color noise, but no banding.

7dII vs 5DIII can you tell the difference - FM Forums

 

[Buckster]

Derrel's right. If you're so completely out of control in your framing and composition that you'll have to crop THAT DEEP into your photos, you'd better get the very best of the best that can deal with that level of cropping.

For everything else, there's reality: Wedding shooters successfully continue to use more than one brand and even older gear in many cases because they already get great results and so don't feel a need or reality-based reason to upgrade every time a better sensor comes along, let alone switch brands completely.

 

[runnah]

Oh boy this is going to get out of control quickly!

 

[runnah]

I think some folks are expecting too much. They want to be able to miss a shot by 3 stop and rescue it, they want to shoot in a coal mine at midnight with no flash, they want to crop to be able to get a printable shot of a flea on a dog's ass at a 1,000 yards.

No camera is perfect and there is always a better camera around the corner.

 

[ronlane]

I think some folks are expecting too much. They want to be able to miss a shot by 3 stop and rescue it, they want to shoot in a coal mine at midnight with no flash, they want to crop to be able to get a printable shot of a flea on a dog's ass at a 1,000 yards.

No camera is perfect and there is always a better camera around the corner.

I'll take it, as long as the price is below $1.99

 

[PJL]

Thanks to the people who actually contributed to answering my question.

 

[gsgary]

The simple fact is, that even at base ISO levels, Canon's current sensors suffer from patterned noise problems...this is why Nikon is kicking Canon's ass. There's a small but dedicated group of Canon fans who try their best to argue against simple science, and who continually try to cast doubt on DxO Mark's results. Over and over and over, these guys spend time and effort trying to call into question/discredit/badmouth/slander/libel the efforts of DxO Mark.

Part II - Controlled tests

look at the pictures. Same exact lens, a Zeiss 25mm, used on the two bodies. One sucks when underexposed, or the shadows are recovered. The Sony-made sensor on the other hand, has amazing shadow quality, with virtually no noise. Look at the images, then go look at the DxO Mark scores, and see for yourself.

Oh-and this test? Performed by none other than Fred Miranda himself...a dedicated Canon owner and user. Huh...

People who claim that there is not a well-known, very real, very significant patterned noise problem with Canon's sensors are lying to you. Period. Just LOOK at the images. SEE it with your own two eyes. And then ask yourself, "Why do these guys try sooooo hard to discredit those who dare point out the truth?" Why? Why is that?

Once again...just LOOK. Part II - Controlled tests

Don't you mean Sony, Nikon would still be way behind without Sony

 

[Designer]

Thanks to the people who actually contributed to answering my question.

Any chance that you could find the time to answer my question?

It, IMO, has a direct and very real relationship to finding an answer to your question.

 

[PJL]

I have a couple stands and modifiers (60" umbrella, soft box, reflectors). And yes, I have some money to play with.

 

[Derrel]

I have a couple stands and modifiers (60" umbrella, soft box, reflectors). And yes, I have some money to play with.

At different points in time, Nikon had a clear lead, Fuji had its day for a short time, Canon held the lead in a VERY clear and dominating fashion with the 5D for a few years, and then Nikon began a massive resurgence after they fired dozens of senior managers in their 50's and 60's and replaced them with younger men in their 40's, and told them to right the ship.

You want to know if you should ditch a $1,000 Canon kit with a couple lenses and a body, and move to another brand? This is a great point in time to do just that. Just as it was a SMART move to drop Nikon and buy a Canon 5D in the mid-2000's era.

You might find that if you start looking outside of your own brand, that there are options that are actually better or more advanced, for specific uses, or for your own needs. If a person wants something generalist, anything will do; if a person wants the absolute BEST in a specific niche, then there are actual differences. That cannot be argued. You can stay where you are, or you can move toward something else. But it's foolish to let a thousand dollar kit tie you down if you are serious about photography. Have you looked at the Fuji cameras? Causing quite a stir!!!

What do you want to accomplish? Do you think that everything is "equal"? Do you think that what you bought at one point back in time locks you in for life? Do you assume everything has remained static since you bought your first camera?

Gary: Don't you mean Sony would be behind without Nikon? Sony makes great sensors--on steppers with lenses designed and built by Nikon. Nikon's current cameras use sensors made by Nikon, by Sony, and also by Toshiba. Sony is also selling sensors to Pentax, and probably some other buyers as well. Canon makes its own stepper lenses.

here's what a stepper looks like. Pretty cool! steppers probably Nikon maybe Canon Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum Digital Photography Review

 

[JoeW]

I think some folks are expecting too much. They want to be able to miss a shot by 3 stop and rescue it, they want to shoot in a coal mine at midnight with no flash, they want to crop to be able to get a printable shot of a flea on a dog's ass at a 1,000 yards.

No camera is perfect and there is always a better camera around the corner.

What a timely response! I have a coal mine at midnight shoot coming up. The client has specified no flash or artificial light of any sort since it might set of a gas explosion. What body should I buy? Oh, and I'm not some GWC like Runnah with his cheap*ss budget, I can afford to spend BIG money...but the body has got to be under $125.

 

[pgriz]

I have a Canon T1i (500D) - an obsolete, entry-level camera. And yet, my skills limit my image-making abilities more than the camera does. So personally, I'll continue to focus on getting better at image-making by working to improve my skills. That applies to lighting, staging, post-processing, conceptualizing. Then again, I'm not trying to shoot action at EV6 light levels, or 14-stop dynamic range scenes, or closeups of birds in flight. If you ARE operating at the edges, then getting better gear will certainly help on the technical front, and as Derrel points out, the Nikons seem to have a lead at this stage. But how much of your photography IS at the edges? And how critical is that performance to your goals? If the answers are "often" and "very much" then you've got a clear direction.

 

[fjrabon]

If you are going to jump ship, now is absolutely the time to do it. It sounds like you aren't particularly heavily invested in Canon at this point, but are about to increase whatever investment you have many times over.

I think Nikon truly does have a body advantage at this point. I think it's hard to argue otherwise. How long will they hold that advantage? Who knows? (and yes, most of this advantage should be credited to Sony, who makes their sensors, which is why they beat out Canon, because Canon sticks to making their own sensors)

Lens wise, Canon, I'd say has a moderate advantage on telephotos. I think Nikon has a slight advantage in midrange and wide angles.

If you were $5K deep in Canon gear, I'd absolutely say stick with it. But where you are now, I'd say try both out and go with your gut. Getting the right system for you is much more important at this juncture than the $1000 or so in gear you currently have, most of which you'll want to replace anyway.

It's weird to me that the Canon people's argument is "it's not *really* that big of an advantage Nikon has, so go Canon." Sure, it's not a huge difference, but it is a difference. Though if sports were your thing, I could absolutely see sticking with Canon because Canon's fast telephotos are still the best in the business.

One last thing to consider is that I'd say Canon's professional services are still better than Nikon's, though the gap has closed, as Canon's isn't what it used to be and Nikon's has gotten better. But Canon still has an advantage there, I'd say.

 

[tecboy]

The lack of dynamic range in canon is a minor issue. The whole point to get high quality or professional looking photographs is to get the right exposure and less tweaking in post processing. Therefore, you don't have to worry about noises in shadows or in dark areas.