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

[CdTSnap]

I put a potato through a Canon fax machine once... with a air compressor powered potato canon, it was glorious.

 

[JerryLove]

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.

Yes. Don't address what I said: make patronizing comments about me. That's both compelling and tends to spark useful discussion.

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.

So to be clear: the company which makes the best sensors is a company with its fingers in lots of different industries, and being in other industries in no way makes any claim on the quality of the sensor?

Cool. So what was that garbage about Canon and printers for?

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...

Curious. How many cameras use a given sensor from Sony or Toshiba. Is it more than six? I'd bet it is.

So again: You made an implication ("using the same sensor in 6 cameras proves you have bad sensors") and then advocated a sensor that was used in more than 6 cameras.

It's amazing to me that so few people have gotten your "simple facts". Non-Nikons continue to sell, and continue to get well reviewed. Canon, Sony, Pentax, Hasselbald, Fujitsu, Panasonic, BlackMagic. Some of these companies even make printers (Rioch) and televisions.

Robbins was right about religious zealotry: But he's pointing the finger the wrong way.

 

[Braineack]

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.

you are constantly interchanging the T3 and T3i and as you said:

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

But nice try...

LMFTFY:

A better site (dpreview):
Score 67 on T3
Score 72 on D3100
Score 73 on D3200

The ever popular DXOMark:
Score 62 on T3
Score 67 on D3100
Score 81 on D3200

The Snapshot link that you scoff at lists a lot of advantages the D3200 has over the T3; beyond the image sensor.


So again, where was my idiotic juvenile bashing? I'd go as far as saying that someone looks incredibly foolish and childish right now, but I don't necessarily think it's me or even Derrel. I could be wrong.

 

[Braineack]

Both of those Nikons have a better image sensor than the T3.

Unless you want to be able to view the image you took at 6400 ISO, where the 3100 is considered "extended ISO" and the T3 is not.

There's more to image than MP, or even measured DR (which is not the same as useful DR).

Canon Rebel T3 / EOS 1100D Review: Digital Photography Review

The D3100 has the ability to shoot at 12,800 iso. The T3 does not. The chart you posted suggests the D3100 and T3 rate roughly the same at all ISOs, where the Canon might be trivially better at 6400, but not as good at 12,800.

Subjectively, based on that chart, I find the D3100 looks better at between 100-800iso (look at blue square), and look about the same between 1600-6400, and the D3100 looks better at 12,800.

 

[robbins.photo]

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?

First, go back an reread your original response to me, the one in which you started by saying obviously I was saying that they faked test results. Then climb down off your high horse, because frankly you have zero claim to moral superiority here. You started slinging mud from the get go, hardly fair to whine about the fact that your now getting dirty as a result.

Second, if you want to compare lowlight capabilities from Nikon to Canon it sure helps a lot if you stick to the very lowest stuff available in Nikon's lineup. Cherry picking results can help a lot. Unfortunately in this case it doesn't help nearly enough, again there are noticeable differences between them even on the links you provided. Whether or not you chose to see them that's up to you, but that's why I prefer objective data comparison of the sensor output because there is nothing subjective about such testing, it's entirely objective. But hey, to each his own I guess.

As for the rest, well again I see little to no point in continuing a "discussion" with you on this topic, you've obviously made up your mind despite all evidence to the contrary which makes any form of meaningful dialogue impossible. So again I will wish you well and hope you enjoy your day.

 

[Civchic]

I own a T3. I love it. It has terrible high ISO/low noise. Awful. I do everything I can to avoid going above 400, and would rather not take pictures than go over 800. I work around these things becuase this is the camera I have and will have for awhile.

That is all.

 

[Braineack]

I own a T3. I love it. It has terrible high ISO/low noise. Awful. I do everything I can to avoid going above 400, and would rather not take pictures than go over 800. I work around these things becuase this is the camera I have and will have for awhile.

That is all.

WHOA WHOA WHOA. quit bashing Canon; racist.

 

[JerryLove]

you are constantly interchanging the T3 and T3i and as you said:

Unintentional (not sure about "constantly"), but a fair point. I'd go correct, but you already did.

A better site (dpreview):
Score 67 on T3
Score 72 on D3100
Score 73 on D3200

The ever popular DXOMark:
Score 62 on T3
Score 67 on D3100
Score 81 on D3200

Exactly!

The Snapshot link that you scoff at lists a lot of advantages the D3200 has over the T3; beyond the image sensor.

And I've said that the D3200 is the better camera. Go back to my first comment. The only thing I said about the T3 (which is not a camera I like) is that it has less noise at high ISO than the 3100/3200

So again, where was my idiotic juvenile bashing? I'd go as far as saying that someone looks incredibly foolish and childish right now, but I don't necessarily think it's me or even Derrel. I could be wrong.

Quote me and I'll admit error or defend my statement. (see examples of me doing both above in this post).

 

[JerryLove]

First, go back an reread your original response to me, the one in which you started by saying obviously I was saying that they faked test results. Then climb down off your high horse, because frankly you have zero claim to moral superiority here. You started slinging mud from the get go, hardly fair to whine about the fact that your now getting dirty as a result.

It's funny that you mention that post... because you still haven't addressed the absolute first point I made, have you?

dpreviews has photos taken with both cameras. The noise at higher supported ISO is clearly less with the T3 than the 3100/3200. You've not explained how this is possible along with your claim that noise is worse on the T3. Instead: you've called me a zealot.

I think I'll keep my high-horse as the victim here. I didn't name call first.

Second, if you want to compare lowlight capabilities from Nikon to Canon it sure helps a lot if you stick to the very lowest stuff available in Nikon's lineup. Cherry picking results can help a lot. Unfortunately in this case it doesn't help nearly enough, again there are noticeable differences between them even on the links you provided. Whether or not you chose to see them that's up to you, but that's why I prefer objective data comparison of the sensor output because there is nothing subjective about such testing, it's entirely objective. But hey, to each his own I guess.

I am sticking to the cameras being asked about. (my erronious cite to T3i rather than T3 not withstanding).

I'm not comparing Canon to Nikon. I'm comparing the T3 to the D3100/D3200 as these are the specific cameras asked about by the OP.

The fact that you have turned a comparison if specific cameras into a brand-war in your head really does say a lot about who it the zealot (a word you first slung, if you recall)

As for the rest, well again I see little to no point in continuing a "discussion" with you on this topic, you've obviously made up your mind despite all evidence to the contrary which makes any form of meaningful dialogue impossible. So again I will wish you well and hope you enjoy your day.

The evidence you've never presented?

Again: the actual high-ISO shots on DPReview clearly show less noise on the T3 than the D3100/D3200 at high ISO. Please point me at the evidence to the contrary. You've never addressed literally the first question I asked you.

 

[JerryLove]

I own a T3. I love it. It has terrible high ISO/low noise. Awful. I do everything I can to avoid going above 400, and would rather not take pictures than go over 800. I work around these things becuase this is the camera I have and will have for awhile.

I feel your pain. I have a T2i (and XSi) with similar traits. (My 6D works *much* higher, and though I'd rather not go this high, I have useful photos up to ISO 10,000).

I have been tempted to see if the noise-reduction software in the T2i is sub-optimal and I'd do better manually cleaning otherwise un-fixed RAW files. Didn't experiment much there.

According to the shots on DPReview (the only actual lab tests I'm aware of where pictures are shown), the D3100/D3200 is worse.

Of course: If you want *really* high ISO, try the new Sony A7S.

 

[robbins.photo]

First, go back an reread your original response to me, the one in which you started by saying obviously I was saying that they faked test results. Then climb down off your high horse, because frankly you have zero claim to moral superiority here. You started slinging mud from the get go, hardly fair to whine about the fact that your now getting dirty as a result.

It's funny that you mention that post... because you still haven't addressed the absolute first point I made, have you?

dpreviews has photos taken with both cameras. The noise at higher supported ISO is clearly less with the T3 than the 3100/3200. You've not explained how this is possible along with your claim that noise is worse on the T3. Instead: you've called me a zealot.

I think I'll keep my high-horse as the victim here. I didn't name call first.

Second, if you want to compare lowlight capabilities from Nikon to Canon it sure helps a lot if you stick to the very lowest stuff available in Nikon's lineup. Cherry picking results can help a lot. Unfortunately in this case it doesn't help nearly enough, again there are noticeable differences between them even on the links you provided. Whether or not you chose to see them that's up to you, but that's why I prefer objective data comparison of the sensor output because there is nothing subjective about such testing, it's entirely objective. But hey, to each his own I guess.

I am sticking to the cameras being asked about. (my erronious cite to T3i rather than T3 not withstanding).

I'm not comparing Canon to Nikon. I'm comparing the T3 to the D3100/D3200 as these are the specific cameras asked about by the OP.

The fact that you have turned a comparison if specific cameras into a brand-war in your head really does say a lot about who it the zealot (a word you first slung, if you recall)

As for the rest, well again I see little to no point in continuing a "discussion" with you on this topic, you've obviously made up your mind despite all evidence to the contrary which makes any form of meaningful dialogue impossible. So again I will wish you well and hope you enjoy your day.

The evidence you've never presented?

Again: the actual high-ISO shots on DPReview clearly show less noise on the T3 than the D3100/D3200 at high ISO. Please point me at the evidence to the contrary. You've never addressed literally the first question I asked you.

Actually it was addressed, but if you'd like a more complete and total debunking of this nonsense, ok - sure. It's not like it will really matter, as you will only see what you wish to see. Even on the objective sensor tests the difference between a D3100 and a T3 when it comes to high iso/low noise is only about 0.3 Fstops, so not a huge difference between the two really. So when we examine your incredibly subjective testing methodology used over at DPReview, we really shouldn't see a huge difference between the two images as far as noise. I wouldn't expect there to be - nor would anyone with an ounce of objectivity.

When you get to the D3200 the difference is a little more pronounced, which of course is also to be expected since your looking at closer to a 0.6 Fstop difference in the two. Once you get to the D5200 your looking at roughly about a 0.8 Fstop difference and that really starts to become pretty significant. It becomes even more pronounced when you consider the greater dynamic range of the Nikon sensors and take images of something that have some actual color variation to them, but no point in beating this already incredibly dead horse to point of ridiculousness.

Even using the website you linked I think most objective observers who examine the samples closely and with an open mind will see the same differences I did, even though the website chose a terrible sample image to use for their testing because it has very little in the way of color variation. But if you look at the three solid color samples closely and realize that most colors are made up of some combination of these primary's, you'll begin to see that there are some noticeable differences between the two cameras, even between the D3100 and the T3. So if you were taking actual "real world" pictures rather than simply product shots of your coin collection on a plain background yes you would see the differences and they would be more pronounced. But even just examining the solid color samples, it's there. If you'll let yourself see it.

So, in summation, as for the OP or anyone else who is choosing between Nikon or Canon, both have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Lowlight capability and low noise at High ISO is definately not a strength of Canon's crop sensor line up, and anyone that claims otherwise, well I'm sorry but it simply isn't even remotely close to being true. To make matters worse, really the only camera in Canon's crop sensor line up that shows even marginal improvement over their entry level offerings is the 70d, so if you want even a marginal improvement in this arena over the entry level model you'd better be prepared to drop 1k on a camera body. That's really the big kicker here - in Nikon if you are unhappy with the high noise/low ISO performance of the 3100, you can get better in this category by getting a D3200, D5200, D7100 - a lot of choices really that can make a significant difference in this category. If you have a T3, well you aren't going to see any difference unless you step all the way up to the 70d, and even then your looking at a whole 0.3 fstop improvement, basically the same as the difference between the D3100 and the T3.

Now if you don' t shoot in lowlight much, or use studio lighting or flash a lot, or don't really need the higher iso to low noise abilities then this really isn't as much of an issue for you. As such some of the other features that Canon offers might be something that really fit your style of shooting - such as better/larger buffers for continous shooting, or in many models better video capabilities, etc. As such, hey, if you buy a Canon for those reasons I certainlly wouldn't blame you. Nor would I ever behave like a 2 year old on a serious tear and assualt someone with all manner of hyperbole just to make myself feel better about buying a Nikon. Honestly I never have really understood why people do that, it baffles me.

 

[Braineack]

So when we examine your incredibly subjective testing methodology used over at DPReview...

Subjective?! The proof is in the pudding:

It's clear the D800 is worse than the T3.


Objective:

The T3 was shot on a 50mm at f/9. The D800 a 85mm at F/11. The DOF of the D800 is about half that of the T3.

 

[JerryLove]

Actually it was addressed, but if you'd like a more complete and total debunking of this nonsense, ok - sure. It's not like it will really matter, as you will only see what you wish to see.

The more you say things like that, in advance of what I say no less, the more I am convinced you are talking about yourself.

Even on the objective sensor tests the difference between a D3100 and a T3 when it comes to high iso/low noise is only about 0.3 Fstops, so not a huge difference between the two really. So when we examine your incredibly subjective testing methodology used over at DPReview, we really shouldn't see a huge difference between the two images as far as noise. I wouldn't expect there to be - nor would anyone with an ounce of objectivity.

I'm unclear what's subjective about taking identical photos in fixed conditions with both cameras. That would seem to be pretty near the definition of objective.

When you get to the D3200 the difference is a little more pronounced, which of course is also to be expected since your looking at closer to a 0.6 Fstop difference in the two. Once you get to the D5200 your looking at roughly about a 0.8 Fstop difference and that really starts to become pretty significant. It becomes even more pronounced when you consider the greater dynamic range of the Nikon sensors and take images of something that have some actual color variation to them, but no point in beating this already incredibly dead horse to point of ridiculousness.

The D5200 is just as out-of-scope as the 6D is.

Even using the website you linked I think most objective observers who examine the samples closely and with an open mind will see the same differences I did, even though the website chose a terrible sample image to use for their testing because it has very little in the way of color variation. But if you look at the three solid color samples closely and realize that most colors are made up of some combination of these primary's, you'll begin to see that there are some noticeable differences between the two cameras, even between the D3100 and the T3. So if you were taking actual "real world" pictures rather than simply product shots of your coin collection on a plain background yes you would see the differences and they would be more pronounced. But even just examining the solid color samples, it's there. If you'll let yourself see it.

They are posted above. Black seems debatable, but every other photo seems to go strongly in favor of the T3.

So, in summation, as for the OP or anyone else who is choosing between Nikon or Canon, both have their individual strengths and weaknesses.

I agree with this statement. It varies as much by individual camera as by brand (why bringing things like the D5200 into a discussion is a red-herring).

Lowlight capability and low noise at High ISO is definately not a strength of Canon's crop sensor line up, and anyone that claims otherwise, well I'm sorry but it simply isn't even remotely close to being true. To make matters worse, really the only camera in Canon's crop sensor line up that shows even marginal improvement over their entry level offerings is the 70d, so if you want even a marginal improvement in this arena over the entry level model you'd better be prepared to drop 1k on a camera body. That's really the big kicker here - in Nikon if you are unhappy with the high noise/low ISO performance of the 3100, you can get better in this category by getting a D3200, D5200, D7100 - a lot of choices really that can make a significant difference in this category. If you have a T3, well you aren't going to see any difference unless you step all the way up to the 70d, and even then your looking at a whole 0.3 fstop improvement, basically the same as the difference between the D3100 and the T3.

Here's the T3, D3100, and D5200. Without looking up the images, can you tell which is which and put them in order?

Now if you don' t shoot in lowlight much, or use studio lighting or flash a lot, or don't really need the higher iso to low noise abilities then this really isn't as much of an issue for you. As such some of the other features that Canon offers might be something that really fit your style of shooting - such as better/larger buffers for continous shooting, or in many models better video capabilities, etc. As such, hey, if you buy a Canon for those reasons I certainlly wouldn't blame you. Nor would I ever behave like a 2 year old on a serious tear and assualt someone with all manner of hyperbole just to make myself feel better about buying a Nikon. Honestly I never have really understood why people do that, it baffles me.

"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."

"First, go back an reread your original response to me, the one in which you started by saying obviously I was saying that they faked test results. Then climb down off your high horse, because frankly you have zero claim to moral superiority here. You started slinging mud from the get go, hardly fair to whine about the fact that your now getting dirty as a result."

"I see little to no point in continuing a "discussion" with you on this topic, you've obviously made up your mind despite all evidence to the contrary which makes any form of meaningful dialogue impossible. "

The list goes on, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find me making ad-hominems about you that were not direct responses to one's you've made about me (such as implying I was behaving like a two-year old in the above). Perhaps you should get down off that high-horse and look at your own behavior.

 

[JerryLove]

The D3100 has the ability to shoot at 12,800 iso. The T3 does not. The chart you posted suggests the D3100 and T3 rate roughly the same at all ISOs, where the Canon might be trivially better at 6400, but not as good at 12,800.

Subjectively, based on that chart, I find the D3100 looks better at between 100-800iso (look at blue square), and look about the same between 1600-6400, and the D3100 looks better at 12,800.

To be honest: I didn't bother looking at lower ISO.

I disagree at higher ISO with your statement. I've linked the pics, including specifically blue.

Obviously: at an ISO one camera does and the other does not, the one that does not do it will look better (as it's a perfect black non-picture ).

 

[JerryLove]

To the OP's question. The T3 is older tech (it seems to be basically an XSi), competing most directly with the D3100. The D3200 is, in most ways, the better camera.

A comparison of the T3 and D3100: Canon EOS Rebel T3 / 1100D vs Nikon D3100 | Cameralabs

If you have no preference to eco-system (and you should have an eco-system preference, BTW), and unless you have a specific need (take a look at controls), the D3200 is the better deal of the two, despite being about 20% more money.