Why does a 24.2 mp Nikon sell for only $599 when a 12.2 mp Canon sells for $449?

[glun]

The price is not determined by megapixels, the functionally and other factors contributed to the price. Lots of factors.

 

[CdTSnap]

Canon T3 vs Nikon D3200 - Our Analysis

The Nikon is hugely better than the Canon

 

[Derrel]

Canon T3 vs Nikon D3200 - Our Analysis

The Nikon is hugely better than the Canon

Yeah...well... Canon makes one HELL of a photocopier!!!!

 

[runnah]

Yeah...well... Canon makes one HELL of a photocopier!!!!

This was funny the first...actually it never was.

 

[pixmedic]

Yeah...well... Canon makes one HELL of a photocopier!!!!

This was funny the first...actually it never was.

what do you have against Canons line of photocopiers? I hear they photocopy very well. and fax.

 

[JerryLove]

Canon T3 vs Nikon D3200 - Our Analysis

The Nikon is hugely better than the Canon

Snapsnort? Seriously? That place is garbage for reviews.

A better site (dpreview):
Score 77 on T3i Site Search: Digital Photography Review
Score 72 on D3100 Site Search: Digital Photography Review
Score 73 on D3200 Site Search: Digital Photography Review

The ever popular DXOMark (IMO: Very useful, but with a focus on specs that lacks context to the end experience):
Score 65 on T3i Tests and reviews for the camera Canon EOS Rebel T3i, EOS 600D - DxOMark
Score 67 on D3100 Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D3100 - DxOMark
Score 81 on D3200 Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D3200 - DxOMark

And if you aren't too scared that somehow in some way some Nikon might not do as well as some Canon at something: GO TO MY ORIGINAL LINK WITH ISO SHOTS: Canon Rebel T3i / EOS 600D Review: Digital Photography Review

One of the things Canon seems to be reliably better at than Nikon is high ISO noise. Though Nikon has a better DR on paper, the *useful* DR is much more of a competition.

Both cameras have things going for them and, on the whole, I would assert that a D3200 is indeed a better camera than a T3 (indeed: I would never recommend a T3 as a camera to go look at), but this idiotic bashing is juvenile.

 

[JerryLove]

BTW: This 12MP camera will be about $2k

 

[robbins.photo]

Well not bashing here but have a bit of an issue with the notion that canon has better high iso low noise capabilities because at least for crop sensor cameras that just really isn't true.

I don't have access to the full frame stuff to test it "real world" but I have tried several different canon crop sensors and I know that none of them perform anywhere near as well in lowlight as most of their competition, nikon included.

Canon does have some nice features and some models to offer things that would certainly make them an attractive choice for a lot of people.

But lowlight performance at least on their crop sensor line lags far behind their competitors.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Here's a related question: What does a $499 economy Nikon have more megapixels than ANY CANON camera, sold at ANY price?

Answer: Canon is too busy selling photcopiers and fax machines and other OFFICE MACHINES to worry about the fact that it is making and selling cameras using old, outdated sensor-making technology and old equipment. Nikon is buying sensors from Sony, and Toshiba--two gigantic Japanese conglomerates that each HAVE updated their sensor-making technology and machinery, at huge expense. Canon does not have to live and die by its cameras--they have the office machines division to help carry the load. And NO, I am not kidding, in ANY way,shape, or form. The same thing can be said of SONY.

Nikon is the last remaining pure IMAGING company left making cameras in Japan...ALLLLLLLL the other companies have camera "divisions" that are part of large industrial complexes...Nikon has to make it on the quality of their cameras and their lenses...and their other "imaging" devices, like microscopes, lenses for various scientific devices, and so on. Sony...has the movie business, the record and music business, and home electronics and computers, and so on. Same with Panasonic and Toshiba.

Canon dominates the photocopier business. They make some awesome FAX machines too, for countries where the FAX is still in use. Panasonic makes some fine radios and electric shavers and stuff. Here are a few CONSUMER ELECTRONICS and OFFICE PRODUCTS companies, but not really pure camera- or lens-makers, but huge companies that have multiple other businesses:Canon,Sony,Panasonic,Toshiba, Sharp,Samsung,FujiFilm.

 

[480sparky]

Here's a related question: What does a $499 economy Nikon have more megapixels than ANY CANON camera, sold at ANY price?

Answer: Canon is too busy selling photcopiers and fax machines and other OFFICE MACHINES to worry about the fact that it is making and selling cameras using old, outdated sensor-making technology and old equipment. Nikon is buying sensors from Sony, and Toshiba--two gigantic Japanese conglomerates that each HAVE updated their sensor-making technology and machinery, at huge expense. Canon does not have to live and die by its cameras--they have the office machines division to help carry the load. And NO, I am not kidding, in ANY way,shape, or form. The same thing can be said of SONY.

Nikon is the last remaining pure IMAGING company left making cameras in Japan...ALLLLLLLL the other companies have camera "divisions" that are part of large industrial complexes...Nikon has to make it on the quality of their cameras and their lenses...and their other "imaging" devices, like microscopes, lenses for various scientific devices, and so on. Sony...has the movie business, the record and music business, and home electronics and computers, and so on. Same with Panasonic and Toshiba.

Canon dominates the photocopier business. They make some awesome FAX machines too, for countries where the FAX is still in use. Panasonic makes some fine radios and electric shavers and stuff. Here are a few CONSUMER ELECTRONICS and OFFICE PRODUCTS companies, but not really pure camera- or lens-makers, but huge companies that have multiple other businesses:Canon,Sony,Panasonic,Toshiba, Sharp,Samsung,FujiFilm.

Who remembers the ad for a copier company whoose jingle was, "We don't make CAMERAS like they do,......... we don't make VACUUM CLEANERS like they do,.......... we don't make STEREOS like they do...... just copiers, just copiers!"

 

[Derrel]

SONY has tried to "buy market share" in the higher-end camera and lens business, but it has been a dismal failure for them...even though they have made some VERY NICE cameras, and even SLASHED prices to never before seen levels (example: 24-megapixel Nikon D3x...Sony A900 at $2699, then Sony A850, basically a very-slightly changed A900 clone, sold for $1899 NEW against the $8k D3x...)...and Sony gained ZERO traction against the Nikon D3x or the Canon 5D Mark II with its A900 24-megapixel SLR, despite massively lower prices for 1) a slightly but notably inferior camera to the D3x and 2) a better camera design than the 5D-Mark II. When Sony 'invented' the A850, so as to be able to sell it at $1899...people STILL wanted to buy a D3x or a 5D-II. Even though the A850 iswas a fantastic, high-resolution d-slr camera--the fact is, Canon's product can be inferior technically and in image quality (5D-II vs Sony A900 or A850), and people will STILL LINE UP to buy the Canon. Because it is a C_A_N_O_N.

Canon is #1. They could make better sensors, but it would cost them millions and millions and millions of Yen to update their sensor fab tech and machinery...and why would they DO that when they are STILL the #1 camera maker, world-wide?

The higher-end camera industry is #1 Canon, and #2 Nikon. Each company has its own unique culture. SONY is the new kid that has tried, desperately tried, to break into the big leagues, but...nobody likes a third wheel...nobody...

Nikon has been cutting prices like crazy the last year or more, trying to get higher and higher unit sales numbers. And mostly, that has worked. There are a LOT of cameras piling up in the channels now, so Nikon has begun to discount. They seem to feel like they must cut prices in order to move unit sales upward. Many consumers already HAVE cameras--but if they see something is "discounted" or "on sale" or has "$100 instant rebate" tags, well...that can stimulate buying behavior. Nikon has to depend on camera- and lens-making to stay in business. Canon and Sony and Panasonic are not in the same boat--they have huge parent corporations. Canon is a much larger company than Nikon. And so, the two companies will most likely have different strategies for their own survival and profitability. Until Canon loses its sales leadership, WHY would they need to change what got them to #1?

 

[JerryLove]

Well not bashing here but have a bit of an issue with the notion that canon has better high iso low noise capabilities because at least for crop sensor cameras that just really isn't true.

So the photos at high ISOs which dpreview claims are actual photos from the camera under identical lighting conditions are what? Fakes?

Here's a related question: What does a $499 economy Nikon have more megapixels than ANY CANON camera, sold at ANY price?

Could it be at all related to the reason that Sony has the new A7S with fewer megapixels still despite being a $2000 body? It's almost like MP count isn't the end-all and be-all.

Answer: Canon is too busy selling photcopiers and fax machines and other OFFICE MACHINES to worry about the fact that it is making and selling cameras using old, outdated sensor-making technology and old equipment. Nikon is buying sensors from Sony, and Toshiba--two gigantic Japanese conglomerates

So Sony and Toshiba are primarily sensor companies and can't be too busy selling PS4s, televisions, computers, tablets, AV systems, car audio, etc? (you point out later that they are indeed distracted by such things). Since they make the sensors (the topic), that would seem important.

As to what Canon is doing internally: I think you are just making up facts to fit your narrative.

Nikon is the last remaining pure IMAGING company left making cameras in Japan...ALLLLLLLL the other companies have camera "divisions" that are part of large industrial complexes...Nikon has to make it on the quality of their cameras and their lenses...and their other "imaging" devices, like microscopes, lenses for various scientific devices, and so on.

But not sensors, which are the topic.. because Nikon doesn't make sensors. (Nikon does or did make sun-glass frames, which seem less related to cameras than printers are)

So you are saying that Nikon cameras are always better than every other camera on the planet because Nikon only makes imaging equipment? Cause if you aren't saying that, you aren't saying anything related to the topic, are you?

 

[Derrel]

Dude, you obviously need to read up a bit on the camera business. And take some classes in reading comprehension. "My narrative" "MY narrative?" LMFAO!!! this is alllll very,very well-known by anybody who knows anything about the camera and imaging industry. I'm just passing along some very BASIC FACTS about the camera business as it has been widely reported on in the various outlets, for well over a decade. Dude...this is not "my" narrative...this is how it works. Get a clue.

SONY and Toshiba are making some amazing sensors; they have upgraded to .18 micron process; Canon is STILL using the much older .50 micron process. Can you say "Canon Pentium IV"? Canon is still in the Pentium IV era...but why upgrade when you are ALREADY #1.

Intel is right here in my area. Get a clue on fabs. And on how big businesses work. Leaders do not need to innovate nearly as much as those in second and third place do. Canon made what was it? SIX consecutive cameras, from 2009 to 2013, using the SAME, exact sensor that premiered in the Canon 7D...

Nikon and Pentax just went out and outsourced sensors from Sony, and then later, from Toshiba. This is not my narrative...this is common knowledge...

 

[robbins.photo]

Well not bashing here but have a bit of an issue with the notion that canon has better high iso low noise capabilities because at least for crop sensor cameras that just really isn't true.

So the photos at high ISOs which dpreview claims are actual photos from the camera under identical lighting conditions are what? Fakes?

Well having shot a D5100, D5200, D7000, Canon T3I, T4I, 40d, 60d and 70d and actually having a chance to compare the results side by side myself I really have a hard time believing that anyone could possibly claim that Canon has better high iso/low noise ratio than Nikon on their crop sensor bodies. The sensor comparisons just don't bear that out, neither did my real world tests.

I did take a quick look at the ISO noise widget, and I would disagree completely that the differences when you compare the noise on a D5200 and a T3I aren't noticeable, frankly they are even using the DPReview widget you bookmarked. I could spot some pretty clear differences, would probably have been a lot more noticeable had their sample images actually been something with more color variation rather than the sample they chose. But even with their choice in samples, at least for me the differences were noticeable - and frankly my vision really isn't anything to write home about.

i know a lot of guys that shoot Canon and love them - and you know what, i'm ok with that. For me the Nikon was a better choice for what I do, but I don't run around claiming that my D5200 will shoot faster than an Sony A77, or has better lowlight abilities than a Canon 5d Mark III - even if I can find something on a website somewhere making such a claim. I just know it isn't true.

But you know I don't have to say such things to justify why I like the D5200, why I bought the D5200, or why I use the D5200. Nor have I ever felt threatened by anyone that bought and uses a T3I, 60d, 70d, 6d, 7d, etc. They based their choice off of what camera system was right for them. I don't need to denigrate them to feel better about owning my Nikon. Sadly however apparently you can't say the same.

But if there is one thing I have found is an immutable fact, you don't argue religion with a zealot. It is just a complete and total waste of time, energy, and effort. So with that I will wish you well.

 

[JerryLove]

I did take a quick look at the ISO noise widget, and I would disagree completely that the differences when you compare the noise on a D5200 and a T3I aren't noticeable, frankly they are even using the DPReview widget you bookmarked. I could spot some pretty clear differences, would probably have been a lot more noticeable had their sample images actually been something with more color variation rather than the sample they chose. But even with their choice in samples, at least for me the differences were noticeable - and frankly my vision really isn't anything to write home about.

The products being discussed are the Canon T3, Nikon D3100 and Nikon D3200.

If a D5200 does or does not outperform a T3i for high-iso noise, that would be a different discussion.

i know a lot of guys that shoot Canon and love them - and you know what, i'm ok with that. For me the Nikon was a better choice for what I do, but I don't run around claiming that my D5200 will shoot faster than an Sony A77, or has better lowlight abilities than a Canon 5d Mark III - even if I can find something on a website somewhere making such a claim. I just know it isn't true.

I haven't shot with either of the cameras involved. What I have done is looked at the lab-sample photos and read the professional reviews.

But you know I don't have to say such things to justify why I like the D5200, why I bought the D5200, or why I use the D5200. Nor have I ever felt threatened by anyone that bought and uses a T3I, 60d, 70d, 6d, 7d, etc. They based their choice off of what camera system was right for them. I don't need to denigrate them to feel better about owning my Nikon. Sadly however apparently you can't say the same.

Your reading comprehension is usually better than this.

Go back in this thread and see which I flat-out stated was the better camera of the two being compared... the Canon or the Nikon. Go look up some of my posts where I recommended a Nikon over a Canon and come back and tell me what I am threatened by.

It seems, sadly, that you have to make a caricature of me in order to dismiss what I've said. I've watched EVF evangelists make the same types of ad Hominems about people who like OVFs. I suppose you feel that the people at dpreview must also only write their reviews based on feeling threatened?

Meanwhile: I've got two people all but saying that Nikon is better in every possible way from every other camera and anyone who thinks anything has any advantage in any way is obviously in idiot... but *I'm* insecure? Really?