Have 3 original EF lenses from early 90's, taken good care of...wondering which camera I should get.

[TimmyD11]

How about the 6D if I decide to stretch my budget?

 

[TimmyD11]

And why would I be "amazed" at a base level Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor but not amazed by a Canon 80D or T6s?

 

[Derrel]

And why would I be "amazed" at a base level Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor but not amazed by a Canon 80D or T6s?

TWO words describe it all."ISO invariance."

Sensor technology in Nikon,Pentax,and Sony camerras is advanced, ahead of where Canon's home-brewed sensor technology is. How so?

"ISO invariance" is what Nikon has, what Sony has, and what Pentax has, and what Canon lacks. Severly.

ISO invariance means that with a new,modern, state-of-the-art sensored Nikon APS-C camera, you can under-expose to a high degree, to protect highlights from over-exposure OR to get a fast shutter spoeed in sucky light conditions, and then, later, in software, you can "lift the shadows" to a huge degree--all without horrible noise in the shadow areas. And I mean on 4-,and 5-stop shadow lifts. THIS is what is ****amazing****. THIS is what Nikon, and Sony, and Pentax, have developed, with sensors made by Sony AND also, by Nikon. Sony builds sensors on steppers made by Nikon, and has for years.

Canon sensors OTOH, have a long way to go. ISO Invariant cameras like the Nikon D7200 are amazing. So is the full-frame D610's sensor. In simple terms...Nikon APS-C sensors can recover HORRIBLY under-exposed shots in software, with little penalty. Not so with Canon's older sensor technology.

Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study

The Nikon D600 has a VASTLY superior sensor than the Canon 5D Mark III, which came out priced around $3,499. WHY? ISO invariance on the D610 makes it a simply astounding imager, in a low-cost, serious enthusiast's body. Far better than the older-tech 5D-III.

Canon's 6D is a first step toward catching up to Sony, circa 2009. But Canon's APS-C sensors are still far from state-of-the-art, like Nikon's D3400 and D5400 have.

 

[weepete]

Much as I respect Derrel and Braineack's opinions I'm going to disagree on this one. Yes, there are benefits from going to a full frame and I understand where they are coming from in that these lenses were made to work with that format. Yes, fast glass can be good, but if your primary subject is landscapes you are going to want to be at f8-f16 anyway most of the time, and you'll generally want to be shooting from a tripod for landscapes so shutter speed is the thing that you can leverage to get good quality shots.

if you want a wide there's the Canon EFS 10-18mm STM wich is cheap but performs really well which would sit nicely with the lenses you already have.

It's true that the Nikons have slightly more dynamic range and are ISO invariant but for landscape photography as long as you take care with your exposure there is not a huge difference for most (empasis on most) people. For really good landscape photography you'll need the light to be right anyway.

I'd say keep way from in camera instagramish filters and get some half decent PP software.

Really great landscapes are much more about the right lighting and the right location.

 

[TimmyD11]

Why has Canon allowed themselves to be so far behind?

 

[Derrel]

Why has Canon allowed themselves to be so far behind?

When you're the sales leader, there's no real incentive to improve your products...just to maintain the status quo, and keep churning out those clever Canon television and magazine advertisements.

"The Canon AE-1: so advanced, it's simple."THE TV slogan that made Canon a force to be reckoned with! Canon used TV advertising to become a HUGE market force in the mid- and late-1970's. Marketing is a big thing for them. They KNOW how to market products to huge, mass audiences. Nikon and Sony suck at marketing! Canon was a major early adopter of prime-time TV camwera commercials, and knows that advertising is a huge factor is sales. Nikon's ads have been laughable!

SONY spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of Yen to develop new sensor fabrication technology, in an effort to develop sensors for SALE to other camera makers, and for their own use... SONY bought Konica-Minolta's camera IP and patents and tried to gain a place in the Japanese camera industry after decades in consumer electronics...Sony needed an inside anglke, and they develpoped one with HUGE investment in sensor fabrication and design...Canon? Nope, too busy maintiaining sales position to decide to challenge the other players. Smart for Canon corporate and shareholders.

Canon has a nice photocopier division. Nikon is the last mostly image-making company left in Japan: the industry has been compacted/decimated/consolidated over the last few decades. Nikon is an old-line optical and camera company...and is small...Canon is HUGE....Sony is HUGE.

Canon's goal has been to maintain its #1 camera sales lead position, for years...Canon re-used the same crappy 18-MP sensor in five sequential Canon d-slrs over more than half a decade....Nikon and Sony could not coast on their laurels the same way....they HAVE to try harder...Canon did not want to invest hundred of millions of Yen to make better sensors: it makes MORE sense to spend the money on advertising, promotion, and R&D for lenses and other accessories, as long as the sales come in, it doesn't matter to Canon corporate nor to Canon shareholders if their sensors are state-of-the art and class-leading, or below that, as long as the sales stay high, that's the critical factor. AND the industry is not an expanding one, so...stay the course, keep the ads cranking, keep the prices competitive, and do not spend hundreds of millions of Yen if the #1 sales position stays at #1. Simple, right?

Sony OTOH...spent heavily on sensor R&D, on fabs, and now can SELL these key pieces to Nikon,Pentax, Fuji, Hasselblad, and to other, industrial users of sensors (CCTV, industrial imaging sensor rigs, etc) AND ALSO use them in its OWN bid to enter the high-end camera and video markets in an industry where MANY buyers are very tech-savvy. When you are brand-new to a business, you have to have an edge, and angle, a business plan. When you are small, you need an edge.

 

[TimmyD11]

Perhaps, maybe people will drop $1000 to $2000 on a camera and lenses, without doing their homework, and let name recognition being the deciding factor, but I won't. Does Canon know they are getting their asses kicked? Because if you read real people reviews of their cameras...they seem to still like their Canon cameras - they haven't gotten the word that they are inferior to something else they could have gotten for the same price? But that makes me wonder: Is the consumer clueless? Do these poor results only show up in laboratories and not in real world uses?

 

[Derrel]

Perhaps, maybe people will drop $1000 to $2000 on a camera and lenses, without doing their homework, and let name recognition being the deciding factor, but I won't. Does Canon know they are getting their asses kicked? Because if you read real people reviews of their cameras...they seem to still like their Canon cameras - they haven't gotten the word that they are inferior to something else they could have gotten for the same price? But that makes me wonder: Is the consumer clueless? Do these poor results only show up in laboratories and not in real world uses?

MOST users will not switch brands. So, it doesn't matter to the large user base if the competition has something better; until you've actually bought and used a superior system, you never really know what you are missing, and many people get along just fine with less. Ford makes a nice family sedan. Does Mercedes make a nicer family sedan?

Fanboys can convince themselves that what they have is plenty good, and that there is nothing else better on the market. McDonald's and Walmart are huge sales forces in the "restaurant" and "retail store" businesses; are they the best of their kind?

 

[TimmyD11]

No bad PR in photo magazines showing Canon getting destroyed by the competition, if not necessarily the sales?

 

[Braineack]

Why has Canon allowed themselves to be so far behind?

Nikon would be just as far behind if they weren't smart and used Toshiba and Sony sensors instead of developing their own and letting them age on the market for over ten years like Canon did.


they've improved some, but they cant hold a fiddle, still, to today's newer market contenders:

And once you're invested in Canon lenses, it's hard to just switch to Nikon or alike, so users are just going to stick with it, and pretend that blacks should be purple.

Everything Canon puts out on the market, Nikon calls and raises with a direct competitor that typically does everything a little better.

IMHO, I still think both are behind the times about 5 years and are both still resting on laurels and will fall eventually to Sony/Fuji/etc who are innovating and improving and will be too far behind the curve to catch up.

 

[TimmyD11]

So you were saying that Canon sensors are very inferior to Nikon and I think Sony. Has this changed with these newer Canon DSLR's? I understand there are improved sensors in the T7i / 77D / 80D.

Any Canon almost as good as the Nikon D7200, which seems to be the best APSC camera before the leap to full frame?

I'm considering one of those 3 cameras...unless I splurge a little more and go full frame...or do something entirely different like mirrorless APSC.

 

[Braineack]

They have improved a bit so far as I've seen. But having an ISO invariant sensor is fantastic when you miss the exposure and need to recover.

 

[TimmyD11]

And if ISO invariant is good Canon hasn't made theirs that way because?

 

[Braineack]

they were market leaders and didnt have to. once you buy into a brand, it's expensive to switch.

 

[TimmyD11]

Alright but now that THAT can of worms has been opened they didn't make it a priority to at least match that technology?

And if not HOW are these new sensors an improvement over previous ones?